Board of Adjustment regular meeting Tuesday, October 14th, 2025. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, NJ MJSA 104-6, specifically on January 15, 2025. Proper notice was sent to the courier news star
ledger and filed with the clerk of the council of Bridgewater and posted to the municipal bulletin board. Please be aware of the zoning board of adjustment policy for public hearings. No new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new testimony will taken after 10. You're able, please rise for the salute to the flag
to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> Nancy, welcome back. Good to see you. Give a roll call, please.
>> Fouse >> here. >> Mr. Widley >> not here. >> Mrs. Amin >> here. >> Mr. Sweeney. >> Mr. Fresco >> here. >> Mr. Bonjouro >> here. >> Mr. Geski >> here.
>> Mr. CCAT >> here. >> Mr. Kulak >> here. >> Mr. Vesio and Mr. Gabbit >> here. >> For the record, Richer, board of present. Bill Burr, board
engineer, present. And Katherine Sarmad, board planner, also present. You have a quorum, you can proceed. >> Thank you. All right. Uh, this is the open public meeting section of the of the meeting. If anyone would like to speak on any
matter not on our agenda, you can approach the microphone, this is the time to do that. All right. Uh, I have one very quick item. Uh, I got a call from a resident last night about a number of trees being removed on a project being done by the
county on Bosler Avenue. Um, currently to access Hawk Point, the Washington Valley Park system, you come down Miller Lane. It's a kind of a curvy road. Uh, apparently, and in front of you and out in the audience, you can see uh the pictures I took today. Uh, I pulled the
contract. Um, it's contract 250001 with Somerset County. It's for $946,000 and in that contract it stipulates that 34 trees will be removed. Now, when I tell you when I went to this site today, I literally almost fell to my knees
because this board works tirelessly and and thank you for everyone for volunteering their time. Um, it's more than just these meetings. We we have meetings with the township with it's just an incredible amount of hours go in by every member and I can't thank you enough. And it really all revolves
around this what's on the screen. It's about saving the trees. It's about saving our town. It's about saving the quality of life. And to see 34 quote unquote trees that were destroyed to make a new road where a road already exists and to spend almost a million
dollars to do it, there's just no way that this was only 34 trees. So, I I went to the county commissioners meeting tonight. They did a collective shrug. They didn't really know what I was talking about, but I know Mr. uh went out as well to look at the project today. Thank you for taking time. I I don't want to put you on the
spot because none of us are arborists, but I did pull the satellites. I I pulled different five different sets of satellites and I also went to Google and I pulled a set of satellite uh data images. Bill, I I have over 300 trees easy that were that were removed. And um
you don't have to speak to this. It's it's up to you. But can we collectively agree this was more than 34 trees? >> Yeah, I would I would agree with that. I I did, Mr. Chairman, visit visit the site, took the plans with me. Um,
they definitely took more than 34 trees down. The the evidence is not really existing anymore because it's just ground up mulch piles everywhere. But yeah, we're we're actively looking into it. Um, we're doing the same thing that you did. We're we're trying to go back
into into the aerials and and review how many trees we think existed, trying to look at surveys, just trying to get a handle on it because it sure does look like there was more than 34 trees taken down. >> Bill and we had an applicant a number of years ago. I won't mention their name, but they did cut down more trees than were allowed under their resolution
after we memorialized it. And we went back, Scarlet helped me, we pulled satellite imagery, and we're able to successfully find it was five figures in fines we pulled from this. I'm gonna ask that you and Katherine and and maybe Tom Gova and Mike Papus collectively work.
I'd like my 343 trees back. Um if it's more, I want more trees back. Um because this property is in the open space register and it's also has a green anchor state of New Jersey sign on it. I I feel that there may be a mechanism to claw back monies and if we are able to
collect money from the county for this, you know, I'll volunteer time with anyone that wants to help out to get these trees replanted. um all over the township and hopefully back on this property because I know that Voseler and Route 22 after Ida. We we literally had someone die that was swept from their
car. Uh we had a UPS driver that pulled somebody out of their car and I know you worked extensively getting Bosler fixed up. I think the town spent almost $900,000 on that road. So, um I guess it's a work in progress. Um if anyone wants to go and visit it, it's it's
pretty jarring. And um that's my comment. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? >> All right. Thanks. Thanks for the time, everyone. Uh we have a few minutes for approval. We have uh August 12th, 2025, August 26,
2025, and September 9th, 2025. Comments or changes? >> Uh I changes to one of them. I gave it to Nancy. >> Okay. I have some editorial revisions from
Mrs. Zamine on uh the August 26th draft. So those will be made and adopted with um edits as they're just editorial revisions and
it's just August 26. The other two there were no comments unless anyone has comments now. >> Okay. Do I have a motion on the group of three sets of minutes? >> I move that we pass. >> All right. I have a a motion to pass all
three minutes. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Is Mr. Bonjouro. >> You want a roll call on that? >> Yes, please. >> Chairman Fouse. >> Yes. >> Mr. Widley. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Zamin.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bonjouro. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gieligible. >> Mr. CCAT. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kulak. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Gabbit. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. Uh resolutions.
Let's do Germ Oil first. 24 Fender Avenue. Comments or changes? >> So, I have a couple. Um most are just like small word modifications like application becomes applicant some in one place but p uh paragraphs 24 and 25 are are duplicative so I'm going to take
out 25. >> Got it. >> Other than that no changes. >> Get a motion on germ oil please. >> Yeah I move with the change. >> All right. There's a motion to pass. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Bonjouro. >> Chairman Fouse. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Widley. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Mr. Zamin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Vanjouro. >> Yes. >> Mr. CCAT. >> Yes. >> Miss uh that that's uh that's that was everyone who's el. >> All right.
>> Uh next up 821 Hawthorne Avenue. Comments or changes. >> Motion please. >> Yeah. Move. >> Motion to approve. Mr. Wedelli. Second. >> Second. >> Mr. Bonjouro. >> Chairman Fouse. Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. Last up, we have 160 Oak Street. Comments or changes to the resolution? >> Give a motion, please. >> Yeah, I move. >> Second. >> Second.
>> All right. >> Chairman Fouse. Yes, >> Mr. Widley. >> Yes, >> Mrs. Zamin. >> Yes, >> Mr. Vanjouro. >> Yes, >> Mr. CCAT. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Kulak. >> Yes. >> All right. Next up are applications.
We're going to do 14 Gates Head Drive first. >> Hi there. >> Hey, how are you? >> Good. >> Um, my name is Anthony Wagar. I am here with my wife Emily Wagar and we live at uh >> Hey, before you get too far, >> this is new to me. I apologize.
>> You have to do it twice. Okay. >> So, who who will we have uh testifying? >> Okay. Good evening, everybody. My name is Steve Tomalaki and I'm an attorney from Weiner Law Group. I'm helping out Mr. Wagar this evening. So, tonight we're going to have Anthony Wagar, the applicant and owner of the property. He's going to be testifying, giving the board an introduction as to his
property, who he is, why he wants the pool, why he's doing what he's doing. And then we also have two uh we have Angelo Enelo O N E L L O who's our professional engineer who's going to be testifying to address drainage and you know technical engineering aspects of the application and bel Suspenders we
were our landscape architect Tom Fitz Simmons who we don't anticipate testifying but if the board has any questions about the extent of the landscaping which it's hopefully you're going to be impressed by the amount of landscaping we're be putting in um he's here to answer any technical questions about the planting species etc etc.
Um, so without further ado, unless the board has any questions about the notice and whatnot, I'd like >> I can before we even get there, I I'll swear in your witnesses, but um just for the record, I can state that I've reviewed the uh notices and they were
served properly on time and published on time and uh so the board has jurisdiction. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Roller. We're going to get all the way. Are we going to swear Mr. Roller all at one time or one at? What do you what do you have? >> I have Mr. Wagar, Mr. Oella, the
engineer, and then Mr. Fitz Simmons, who may testify if the board has questions. >> So, let's just take them up as they come. Okay. >> Okay. Good. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> So, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony uh you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And for the record, would you state your
name? Spell your last name, please. >> Yes. My name is Anthony Wagar, and it's spelled W A G A R. >> Thank you, Mr. Wagar. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Wagar. This is your application. It's your property. Why don't you give introduce yourself to the board? Talk about who you are, what your property is
all about, why you're doing what you're doing, the thought process that went into it, and then we'll go from there. >> Okay. Well, again, thank you. Um, so we are um residents here in Martinsville section of Bridgewater. Uh,
we've been here for just a little under four years. Um, we wanted to put a pool, an ingground pool into our backyard. It's been a long-term family dream of ours. Um, finally at a point where we're able to do it and um, we started the
process uh, looking into it about a year ago. Um, started going through the application process and um, as we went into doing this, we realized that we had were in exceedence of our impervious cover. Um I found out about that last
year when we started the application pro Nancy she had helped us with that. Um so we started looking into ways of you know how could we put this pool in and uh still be sensitive to the impact to impervious cover. Um, we tried to do a lot of offsets, reduce the size of the
patio, take out a portion of the driveway, take out some uh gravel patio, just anything that we could do that we thought the board might feel was reasonable and warranted um for the existing impervious cover that we
discovered when we looked into it a year ago. um total impervious cover that we're looking to offset, we're looking to take out close to 600 square feet of it. Um it puts us
at about 316 square feet above the existing imperous impervious cover. Um like I said, this is something we're really excited to do. We want to do everything by the book the right way. Come before the board. I want to just take a quick minute to um you know I
heard chairman of the board talk about you know preserving the um the beautiful characteristics and things that we have here in this town and uh we want to do that as well. We're we're sensitive to it and you know we're community members. I'm a volunteer firefighter. I'm over at Vassler all the time responding to brush
fires and things. So, um, I'm before you letting you know that I recognize the the character of this town and and how what we need to do to preserve it. So, I want to have as little impact as possible. Um, so I thank the board for carving out some time for us. Um, it
it's um all new to me, a lot of the nomenclature, which is why I have some of the the help from my friends here. Um, so if there's any questions you have of me, um, any questions that I can go further? Um, Mr. Wer, one of the issues I brought up in the review reports is
that the right now before you do any of this work, you exceed impervious coverage on the property? >> I do. Yes. >> Now, when you bought the property or since you've purchased the property, have you was any of that any of that impervious coverage attributable to actions that you've taken or was that the condition when you bought the property? >> Nothing that I've done. Everything was
the way it was when I bought it. I looked back in like satellite photos and everything. It was looks like it was that way since '95 when around when the home was built. So, um, I only discovered this a year, like when I first started the application process for the pool. >> And, and to set the stage before Angela
provides, uh, engineering testimony, can you describe currently when it rains on your property, are you, are you having any issues with water going onto your neighbor's property, flooding them, adversely impacting? Explain to the board what the before you do anything on the property, what's the current
situation involving your property in relation to your neighboring properties? So, uh, Pen Road is the So, we're in Gates Head. Pen Road is the top. So, we're kind of on a mountain, not a mountain side, but it it's definitely slopes downward. So, rain flows from the
top of Pen. It goes through seven or eight houses, goes through our house, through our backyard, that goes down to the neighbor. So, it flows all the way down till it gets down to the culde-sac. There's storm drains throughout the streets. So water flows from the top all the way down through upgradient
properties to downgradient through my property. I'm not aware of any flooding um that we have. I mean when it rains heavy. Yeah. It goes into the woods and you know you see puddles and stuff but it's >> in the four years since you've owned the property. Your neighbors haven't come knocked on the door and said what are you doing? >> No nothing.
>> I mean it's been the same since I moved in. >> Very good. >> Unless the board has any questions for Mr. Wagar again. He'll be here the entire evening. Uh but I'd like to have uh Mr. the engineer explained the engineering that go went into the design and what what's being proposed.
Again, Mr. Wager will be here to answer any questions. Yes, sir. >> One quick question. >> Yes, sir. >> Um I'm looking at the side of the house, the asphalt drive. >> Yes. >> How wide is that? Uh, I think it's about 28 feet across because when I went to
figure out how much I could remove and not be into the actual house to the garage, I measured across. So, it's 28 ft roughly across the driveway width. >> Maybe this is for the engineer, but if you shorten the width by one or two
feet, that might bring you into compliance. No, >> I it definitely could. I don't think I'll ever get below the 18%. I I really don't with even taking a lot of that, but I I don't know. I don't know the calculations on
>> I I think you got to get to the 22.5, not the 18. >> That's already approved, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Well, it wasn't necessarily approved before. There's there's no testimony that it was previously approved, just that that's how he bought it. >> Yeah, that's how I bought it. That's
true. So I don't I take as much of the driveway as I can before I I'm into my home, you know. Um so that's what I tried to calculate, you know, when we looked at the driveway and then I'm taking another patio out completely. I'm doing the best I can to have as little
impact as possible like from when I bought it to where what we're proposing is less than a 1% increase. And I'm trying to squeeze that as much >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh any members of the public questions for Mr. Wagar in his testimony. All right. See none. Thank you, sir.
>> Thank you. >> My next witness is Angelo Anel, professional engineer. >> Sure. Is this this can pick me up? Okay. I'll speak loudly. >> Okay. >> Mr. Nell, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> And spell your last name for the record, please. >> O N E L L O. That's Oello. Angelo Onelo, New Jersey licensed engineer number 49284. The address of 5 Beachnut Street in
Hillsdale, New Jersey, 07642. >> Angela, have you had the pleasure of testifying before this board before? >> Not this board specifically. >> Okay. So, give the board uh um you're currently licensed, you mentioned. Yes. >> And your license is in good standing. It is. >> And you've previously qualified as an
expert in civil engineering before other land use boards in the state? uh without throughout North Jersey without a doubt. >> Unless the board has any questions about his expertise, I'd ask him to be considered next. >> Unless the board has any objection to accepting Mr. Onelo, >> we we accepted. Thank you.
>> Now, Mr. Enelo, this plan was drawn by your uh a colleague Jeff Agarian, correct? >> Yes. >> And you've had an opportunity to review these plans and speak with Mr. Agarian about all the design thought that went into it. >> Yes. Um we've thoroughly reviewed the plan together. So, having reviewed the
materials, the review reports, can you give the board an overview as to like the engineering side of what's going into this project, the property, and and some thoughts on how to respond to the board's professional comments? >> Absolutely. Uh, the plan we have before you for the record is um looking at
specifically drawing number two of the engineering plan prepared by DJ Agarin Associates. Uh drawing number two is titled pool location and grading plan for the Wagar residence 14 Gateset Drive block 652 lot 133 Township of Bridgewater Somerset County, New Jersey.
Its original plan date is October 18 of 24 which is approximately one year ago. Last revised in May 9th of 2025. Uh the subject property we have before us is a pre-existing condition slightly undersized property of just over one
acre and within the area of proposed development the pool and the patio. Um there is approximately 5 1/2 to 6 ft of elevation differential. A slopes analysis was performed. It's within the 0 to 10% range. So it's nothing earth
shaking, no pun intended to put a um a modestized patio and pool here. Uh typically a swimming pool on a 1acre property may be 20 by 40 or 800 square feet. In this case, the pool water surface is approximately 743 square ft.
And the patio being proposed um is 755 square ft. And of course, you have the pool coping which is a very narrow strip of impervious area, if you will, but it's counted nonetheless. Uh the pool and the patio. We we'll start with the patio generally would be
more of the 1,00 to,200 ft² range. This is including the coping. It's around 900 square ft. So less than 1,000 um as the plan calls for a section of driveway is proposed to be removed which
has a direct benefit as it's taken away from the contiguous impervious area. Thus that um if you use the bucket of water analogy, maybe we dumped a bucket of water on the driveway. It was to run down yonder in this case um plan up or southsoutheast
direction. It will help mitigate the amount of runoff coming from this um contiguous flow of storm water runoff from the impervious area. There was a question about the width of the driveway. I measure it to be about 28 29 ft. However, we should note that the
backout for the driveway preferably for home of this size should be around 32 ft plus or minus. So, the 28 ft is, you know, the fact that it works is pretty good, but I wouldn't really recommend narrowing the driveway. Um, I like how the plan does call for removing a section of asphalt beyond the driveway
itself. I mean, at the end of the driveway. Okay. >> Now, you've had an opportunity to review the review reports and there was issues about uh mitigating stormwater impacts. Can you talk about based on your review of this plan, what storm water impacts are potential? Uh I mean, Mr. Wagard
testified that right now he's not experiencing any issues, but can you describe the word some suggestions as to how the water that's going to be uh run off by this additional pvious will be captured perhaps by landscaping or other means? Can you just go into that?
>> Sure. Uh so based on my review of the property, it's a swath of landscaped area. I'm excuse me, a swath of lawn within the rear yard. The entire surroundings are predominantly thick, hardy woods, especially to the southeast beyond the rear line and much of the
portions of the adjacent property to the northnortheast here in the rear yard. Um, currently the lawn areas and much of the driveway um, including the roof gutters will spit out onto the lawn and then make their way down into the wooded areas. I find really no current impacts
or no concerns to begin with. Um the pool patio area um is free form shaped and at a very shallow pitch. It should run off very slowly into uh quite a plethora of landscape plantings. I've had um the the privy to review some of
the proposed landscaping around the pool and it's quite hardy within an area that is currently no landscaping at all. >> Okay. Um, do you want to at least give the board a desri? We have the landscape architect here, but if you want to at least give an idea of the board what type of landscaping Mr. Wagar is
proposing around the pool. Can you do that? You can show it. Um, this we have an exhibit that our landscape architect prepared yesterday. So, we unfortunately didn't have an opportunity to present it to the board. >> A1 easel. >> Thank you so much. But we just wanted to
see the extent of the plantings that are being proposed. >> Mr. Nello, if you would though, please just mark that A1 with uh today's date. >> Marking the plan A1. And uh >> I appreciating at this distance it's hard for the board members to see, but
so you can you just verbally describe what is being shown on that plan. >> Sure. It's uh basically the the near verbatim image because we are using the same CAD files as the the the landscape designer. We have the the patio, the pool with the the shallow um beach
entry. And you'll see that all this dense uh little circles and squigglies if you will are the significant amount of plantings with a full schedule of plantings. Um you'll see that beyond the patio areas and the pool itself. Now
keep in mind that water doesn't run off the pool. will stay in the pool, but the patio areas are all draining into into the edges which are heavily planted with landscaping, especially the sloped area beyond the pool itself.
>> Mr. Nella, I mean, um, how would that landscaping help capture any additional runoff caused by the impervious coverage? >> Sure. So, again, a a good chunk of the the driveway is cut off, which originally went onto the lawn. So, that's going to help in that regard. in
a a point source specific location. The patio itself, much of it is to drain into the perimeter of the patio, which is um I much of I think everybody's seen a nice lush poolcape that the the gravels and the mulches and the plants
themselves um especially during the summer season will will suck up the waters. So total belts and suspenders would this on behalf of the applicant would the applicant be willing to work with the township engineer to provide some type of engineered solution to the extent that there's any suggestion that
there's any runoff that needs to be further captured. >> Sure. I mean I understand this is a variance application and anything's possible. However, the plans put forth with the landscaping and the patio, which is the free form area with the with the curvatures and the reduction of
the impervious area from the driveway itself. I believe the the presented um design will work well from a stormwater standpoint, but beyond that, I mean, we could implement other measures if the township engineer requests it.
>> I have no further question for Mr. Enella. >> Thank you. Uh board members, questions for Mr. Ella Board professionals. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. >> I have a question. >> Uh, on the the previous drawing, >> the uh the driveway extends beyond the
house maybe like 30 35 ft or something like that >> in the edge of the house. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Back of the house. Yeah. Why is it extending? Can you remove a little bit more of it or is it
The length of reduction is approximately 10 to 12 feet. So if built as proposed, meaning that the section was removed, it would extend beyond the house approximately 24 ft 20 24 to 25 ft with for all
intents of purposes the width of a parking area drive lane. So the question I have is do you need that much because is there a garage on the side on that side? >> It's the garage. >> Do you need that much uh of the driveway
going back or can you make it smaller? >> Anthony, since you you can I think you can better answer that question. Why don't you address Mr. Moon's question? >> That my that's where my garage is. It's it's right there. So, there is a little extension there where we park the cars because I have a truck and I can't fit
it into the driveway, but um I can come up at least 10 feet and take to take the driveway away. >> So, which is fine. I'm willing to do that because I know I have to offset and that's the fair thing. So, maybe I could I looked at it today and I measured again because I said, "What's the max I
could do?" There's also a gate there. So, I have to take some of the fence down also to remove this driveway. And there's a gate there as well. So I'm taking the fence, the basketball hoop and pole and I can still just get a car
there right by the garage. So I could probably do and I calculated this. Hopefully I did it right. Another 53 square ft in addition to what we're proposing. If you think that's fair, I'm more than willing. >> This would require you to remove your basketball court.
>> I have to. It's not a court. It's just a pole at the end of the driveway. I'm going to have to do it anyway because you can't really play basketball if there's nothing there. >> This is all to prevent water from How many acres of woods are behind your house? >> It there's so many. It's like green acres behind my behind there. I don't
own the property. The town does, I think, or the county does. So, there's it's protected >> green. >> No one's ever building back there. >> No, they can't. It's running. >> Everything that you're doing is just the water's just going to keep going back into the woods, right?
>> Yeah. But I want to do what >> I did. I just want to make sure I like to impous coverage. We're the water is still going to go back into the woods >> and it has always will. But >> you're not doing anything that's sending water anywhere other than back into the woods, right? >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> Just we we don't want to demand that you take out your basketball court. >> No, no, no. But I but I I kind of to take that se to take that section of the driveway out. I I kind of have to because you can't you know it'll be turned back into grass that section
which is fine. It's no big deal. It's not you know >> to board member Gaskki's point though. I mean it really really not going to change the the volumet metric measurement of water that's going in here. >> You know I don't want you to leave here thinking that that board made us take out our basketball hoop. >> No I mean it's it and believe me
chairman >> I you wouldn't believe the amount of thought that went into >> Yes. Please. Second question I have is for the engineer. Mr. Engineer, >> uh when you need to drain the pool
uh let's say sometime in uh before winter, you're closing and you want to take out some water from the pool, where will that water be drained out? Where do you >> talking about when the pool's cleaned out with the backwash filter? No. Where where do if the pool needs to be
emptied, where does the water discharge to? >> Where do you discharge the water? >> Uh, typically you would put it onto the driveway. I mean, you see everybody puts it into the streets, but in this particular instance, it would just be pumped into the wooded area over the lawn.
>> Uhhuh. >> But that's >> onto the lawn. Okay. >> How often is that typically done with a residential pool? >> Very rarely. Maybe a little bit for the cleaning purposes. very rarely is completely emptied.
>> Can Can you show us on the plans where the equipment is going to be? I'm having a hard time seeing. >> Sure. Uh on the to the rear of the residence in the notch on the northeast the inner northeast corner where currently there's a generator and um there's bill coat doors and appear to be
two air conditioner condenser units. It's approp appropriate location. It does add 32 square ft approximately, but it's surrounded by it's dimminimous. It's non-ontiguous impervious area. >> Thank you.
>> And when you need more water in the pool, uh do you have uh something that fills up the pool from the house? >> What's the water the pool supply like when water needs to be added to the
pool? What's the mechanism for filling the pool? Usually you use the hoses and spigot from the residence and when it's originally filled you need a large volume of water. You'll have a a pool water truck come and fill it up like that quick.
>> Okay. So So that house has like a well or is it American water company? American Water Company is my utility. >> Do Do you have Do you get water into
your house? >> I Yes, I pay for the water. I don't have a portable well at my residence. So, I have um >> through American Water Company is >> who supplies my water and I pay for the usage.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> That's all we have, Cher. All right. Any other board members? Everybody good? Board professionals. >> So, just so uh I I had raised some questions um about the pre-existing nonconformities in my review memo and or
in the joint review memo and um just so the board I guess has the full picture. Um, Bridgewwater Township has um, and I did not put this in the review because it did I did a little extra leg work after the review was issued. Um, but I pulled the subdivision map for this
property. Um, and this was done as a cluster subdivision. So, um, if you looked at the most recent master plan, we actually included as an attachment because there have been a lot of cluster subdivisions. Cluster subdivisions mean that the properties that were subdivided
um as long most cases if they provided an open space dedication to the township usually land that was encumbered by wetlands and things um on the larger piece of property if they subdivided into less properties in order to give that open space. They got the benefit of
smaller lot areas than required by the zone. So, this is an R50 zone and by subdivision it was created as a smaller lot as were many of the neighboring lots in on Gates Head Drive. Um, and so that's why you'll kind of notice that it's pre-existing in and non-conforming in lot area, lot width, some of the
setbacks, etc. What a lot of the cluster subdivisions don't account for is um impervious coverage actually. Um, and often in that spreadsheet that's included in the master plan just as a reference document. Um, and this only comes up every so often, but there is
also um, maybe the F or the setbacks that it was approved with, so you can have a better understanding of what was quote unquote grandfathered in. And the Bridgewater Township ordinance, zoning ordinance was actually updated, I think maybe 10 years ago or so to account for this because as properties that received
the benefit of a cluster subdivision had came back for an addition or something um there needed to be a note in the ordinance that it was actually protected and grandfathered in some case. Um just so so this is just to provide some background. It appears that the lot, regardless of the allowance for the the
minimum lot area, and what the ordinance basically says is you get to assume that this lot has enough land, has 50,000 square feet, is a conforming lot, and then base the coverage off of that. So, when you look at this lot at the 18% and
assume it's um a 50,000 foot lot, it's still over by approximately 9 875 square feet existing. And if it was if you look at it not in the zoning table that was put on sheet four of the memo, but you look at it if it was a fully conforming
lot area, it would be about 1,191 square feet over. So not exactly the approximately like 2400 that's shown right there in the table. So that's just for the board's benefit to better understand how our ordinance treats these. It's kind of an unusual case, but it does provide a little bit of
background to understand why it has so many pre-existing non-conformities. So, with that being said, it's still in a pre-existing non-conforming condition for impervious coverage. Um, and obviously the the applicant has noted that that was pre-existing when he bought it. Um, the historical imagery
does show that it probably was conforming as far back as 2002 or so. So, the driveway was in a was less paved. It was smaller in 2002 and approximately around maybe as early as 2007, the imagery is clear enough to show that it was extended back. So, probably for the last 12 to 15
years, it's probably existed in this in this area. Um, and so again, that's just to provide some background. I do think that the applicant has um provided um testimony related to a lot of the items in our memo. Um, well, I would ask and just repeat just to confirm that there
are no trees that will be removed as part of this uh improvement. Yeah. Uh there are no trees that will be removed. In fact, I just planted 12 new ones preemptively. Um and they're pretty nice size and um they're skip 10 skip laurels
and two arborite. Um so there will be no trees removed. It's a very clear um access point to >> you picked a good night to bring that up here. >> Yeah. >> All that on the slides. Yeah, >> that's that's good to know. Thank you. And then I just had noted um in the
joint review that there are um some cleanup items in the zone table that would need to be cleaned up on the plan. So obviously as any condition of um any approval this evening, I would ask that those be cleaned up on any um plans submitted for compliance. Um
and I I don't think I have anything additional. >> Well, what about the rear yard front yard issue? Is that a front yard coming? I know it's a paper right away, right? So, I brought that up and I just kind of glossed it over as I was looking through that. So, in the in that's what kind of
triggered my research into understanding where this was, which was what got me to the cluster subdivision. I pulled the subdivision map from 1995. Interestingly enough, below this or just to the east southeast of it is um what
was what was approved as Bound Brook Manor. And so on the subdivision map, it shows all those rightaways. On the township tax maps, they still appear. That property, I believe, is now open space. And the and the um what's the
name of the road down there? Um >> Western. >> No, no, no. The one the beyond that Running Running Brook. >> Running >> Running Brook. There are culde-sacs off of Running Brook. I I tried my best to find to to to trail down and track down
the Bound Brook Manor subdivision map. Couldn't find it. So, um I don't know what happened with that. I don't know why they still appear as paper streets on the tax map. It does appear to be open space. Um I just couldn't find anything further about it. But I
I still don't know if there's an answer about the front yard, the two front yard setbacks, but I'm going to assume um that that should be a non-issue if it's open space. >> Even if it were a front yard, it would be satisfied. It's just a matter of if
you're saying clean up the zoning table, is it going to be reflected as a >> Yeah. No. I I and I should have made that clear. Yeah. I think the zone table um issues that or the things that were brought up were related more to um there's no floor error ratio requirement that was included and while it's not
being changed I think it would be good to have it on the zone table um and then is similar the building height um to show that it's in conformance with the building height um and then there was one other thing about the zone table indicating a pre-existing non-conforming condition for the single sideyard setback but that
actually is in conformance so just to remove the note that it says it's pre-existing non-conforming. Um, those are the cleanups. As far as the next section about the the tax map and the front yard, if they had an answer to that, if there was something more clear-cut, I'd say, you know, or it showed that it was a front yard or the that the paper street was still active,
then I'd say we do something with it. But with no clear evidence, um, then we just, you know, kind of ignore that, I think. >> Thank you. >> I just have a few quick follow-up
questions. So, um, Mr. Mr. Charello, the lighting, exterior lighting. Is there anything that you're aware of? Maybe this is for Mr. Wagar. Any any exterior lighting proposed as part of the pool? >> Other than maybe those low voltage like landscape lighting like
>> the little landscape that are like low in the ground that for little shrubs and things. >> No spots spotlights of any kind on the back of the house or anything. >> No, no, no, no. >> Okay. Um there's a steep slope plan proposed
on on the variance plan steep or slope analysis. Yes. >> I just want to confirm there there's no slopes greater than 30% that are proposed to be disturbed with this application. Right. >> Not within the limited disturbance. As I
see it, it would appear that the entirety of the limited disturbance, which is less than 5,000 square ft, is within the 0 to 10% range. >> And then we we heard testimony from the homeowner that I think you said 12 new plants were just recently.
>> They're like shrubs, trees. Yes. >> Are they in the front yard, backyard? >> They're in the backyard. They're where next to where like the pool would go. It's like along the fence line. Did you do that for privacy or >> a little of both? Just for to beautify it a little bit. A little privacy, a little just fence kind of just in the
background. >> And I I want to ask a question about the drainage going back to where the runoff the water runoff currently flows >> from the home. I think I heard testimony that collect in the gutters and then
discharge to grade to the ground. Can you just describe for the board where I mean do these go underground to the far rear area into the wooded area? Is that what I heard or? >> Yeah. So, so two things. So, there's really three sides of this. So, the
front yard I have the down spout, you know, the gutters and then the down spouts. They go down the side of the house into the ground. They're piped out, right? And then picked up in the street by the storm sewer. That's all for the front of the home. on the side like where the garage is and the
driveway and all that, I have a little driveway drain that's piped under and goes toward the front. And then in the back, which is probably where you're most interested because that's where the project is. Um I the downspouts on the back of the house, they go down, they go
about midway into the backyard and they go into this what you call it. It's like a bub like a a pop-up train. So it like tries to distribute it wide and even I guess when you have a heavy rain >> into the lawn area. >> Into the lawn area. Yeah. So it's like
about midway into the to the backyard. Okay. >> And then you'll get you'll also get runoff coming down from upgradient, you know, homes as the water travels down the hill and passes through the backyard and goes all the way down till it gets
to like the culdeac. And do you anticipate those current drains or popup drains being disturbed by the pool construction? >> Uh, >> or will they be relocated? >> I think I'm short of where the pool will go, but I do think we'll probably
redirect them a little bit further into the back to prevent, you know, any downgradient runoff. >> Okay, >> that would be my understanding. So, I think when they get there to do the pool and start digging it out, they'll probably redirect it a little further
out is my guess. >> And just just one follow-up question for your engineer. So, the testimony I heard was the landscape package that's proposed around the pool, is any of the runoff from the new impervious area, the pool patio, is that all going to be
directed to some type of new landscape area? Is that what the plan is? as I see it. The swath of I'm gonna flip back over to the exhibit A1. Exhibit A1 has a large swath of landscaping area in between the patio,
the the proposed pool patio and the residence. So with the back pitch of the patio, I would estimate about 2thirds of this would make its way into the heavily landscaped area um heading to plan left, which I believe is northnortheast. It's
a bit of um bio swale and then it would drain into the extended landscaping beyond the pool itself. of course would probably have about a/4 to a third of the patio area which is very shallow pitched um would pitch into this lawn
area which and the lawn area to the south side of the pool definitely makes its way to the back left corner into that heavily wooded area. >> Okay, very good. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Oh, thank you.
>> Sure, Mrs. A. >> You know, I have a question regarding the the filter and the Is that uh open to the environment or is is it enclosed the water filter filter that's
the filter equipment? the filter. >> Yeah, >> the filter equipment >> is it just open to something or is it going to be like enclosed in >> the the mechanical um pool equipment pad which we um discussed a little while ago
is proposed to be located adjacent to an existing generator and two AC units on the northeast side of the residence which I is more of like the outdoor utilities pad area. The pool filter itself, the pool equipment, the whole
apparatus is on a small pad which is generally smaller than this table itself. And it surrounded by as per the proposed landscaping plan by uh quite a few landscape plantings not only for screening but you know for any potential
runoff. >> The way I read it, it says filter and heater, water heater, right? So um is the water heater going to be electric heater or gas heater or what? How does it work?
>> It would be gas. >> Gas. Yes. Because we are currently on gas. >> Yeah. >> Energy. >> You know the reason why I'm asking all these questions is like personally I had a very big swimming pool and we had a shed for all these things. So
>> we're not we're not going to have a shed or anything. protect the equipment. You know, the equipment gets rusted and all that. >> Yeah. But you can't We wouldn't be putting any of that inside of a covered, you know, enclosed unit. It's It's not safe for fire hazards and stuff like
that. So, it would be open and we'd put, you know, we'd put the shrubbery around it to make it pretty so it's not an eyesore to our neighbors or anything. And I had already put a bunch of those trees I had talked about already along those lines to protect their visual >> more for protection of the equipment rather than than
>> Yeah, it's those the equipments outside, you know, it's just they it's going to be exposed to the weather. That's traditionally how that is. >> Engineering testimony. >> Questions on engineering testimony. All right, seeing none, back to you.
>> All right. landscaper. >> Well, I'll ask the board any landscaping questions. Uh, I see none. >> So, why don't you just wrap up and and and basically what's your ask of the board here? What do we need? >> A lot of thought. Can you do the
microphone? >> How can we minimize how can we minimize the uh uh the the net increase of impervious and you know there they changed the design. They're removing parts of the driveway. Again, a lot of thought was put into it. Um could this be made completely conforming?
No, probably not. But the thought the thought being that again he wants a nice beautiful project. We are asking for a little bit of relief to provide a really nice project. if we tried to reduce it too much, again, he's already moving his basketball court and uh it might impact
the like the quality of of the improvement. So again, we're asking the board to indulge uh you know, the the situation involving a somewhat undersized lot. Um everything else is uh he's not uh increasing any other um he's not creating any new variances other
than impervious and again the effort that it's 316 additional square feet and based on the amount of landscaping is being proposed they're really it should mitigate every drop of additional water being generated and uh it's really not impacting any of the neighboring
properties uh adversely. Um, so we are asking for this board's um, you know, for uh, for indulgence to to grant a slight variance to provide a really nice project for Mr. Wagar and M. >> All right. Um, before I open up to members of the public, are you arguing
for the flexible sea or is this hardship please? What is what is your interpretation of the land use? >> It's hardship because of the undersized situation of the lot as Mr. Mr. Armand explained. Um, it really is a C1. Uh, because again, is there a public benefit to having a private swimming pool?
>> Probably not. >> Um, but the hardship created by the size of the property, we just couldn't get past it. >> But a pool does take in water. It does accept water and it is so there is some benefit to the residents theoretically. Correct. >> It does. Yes. Um, mathematically, we're
not allowed to include that. uh we're not allowed to uh consider the storage, >> but operationally it stores water. >> It does. It does. It absolutely does. But again, that's that's just u an extra factor safety to show that the the additional runoff really should not have
any impact on the neighbor. So, um I believe it is a C1. Again, could there be a C2 a public benefit perhaps? But it's really a C1. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Uh members of the public that would like to speak for against this case, now is the time to come forward. All right. Seeing none. Rich, why don't
you take us through what we're voting on and any stipulations? >> So, um, as we heard, there's just the one variance for improve, uh, improved lot coverage. If the board were to, uh, vote in favor of this application, the couple of variance, uh, conditions
rather that we spoke of would be to, uh, implement any other drainage mitigation measures as might be recommended by the town engineer if any. Um, we did have some discussion about further reducing the driveway which I'm not sure we came to a conclusion on. So that should be
discussed a little bit I think by the board and uh also to clean up the zone table in accordance with the comments from the professionals in the reports. That was it. >> All right. Oh, I'm sorry. One other no spotlights. Um, but the use of low
voltage lighting is agreeable. Okay. >> All right. Very good. Jimmy, you want to kick us off for deliberations? >> Uh, yeah. Actually, It's a fine application. Um pool and stay here the area. I have no problem with the application at all. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Kulak. Sir,
>> yeah, I would agree. I think we we have an opportunity here to improve what is a dimminimous increase in imperous coverage. We're doing it to provide an enhancement to the overall property, somewhat to the neighborhood, but for the benefit of the family and their extended family. Um I don't want you to
tear down the basketball hoop. I don't watch if you are reducing some of the driveway as you had originally stated, I'm sure that's adequate and given the the what I think is a very modest ask and improved or impervious coverage, I would support the application as it was
presented. >> Thank you. Hi, Mr. CCAT. >> Hi. Um, I have no concerns with this application and I appreciate that you were doing everything you can to, you know, reduce the impervious coverage. So, I think that's great and very thoughtful of you. Um, I would support
the application. >> Your thoughts on the basketball court net? >> Fine. >> Why not? Thank Thank you, Mr. Gayski. >> Yeah, I appreciate the applicant taking the time uh to do what you did. Um, I I
don't I think for the purposes of the previous coverage as it applies to the zoning and the things that we are here to do, it's not they're not that it applies. We're not protecting the woods. They need water um in this particular situation. So, thank you for taking it
seriously and doing what you did and please don't remove more than than you need to. Enjoy your >> Mr. Morona. >> I think it's a modest ask. I'm in favor of it. >> Thank you. >> Got it. >> Yeah, I agree with the comments so far.
It's a very modest ask and yeah, as you mentioned at the beginning, you're trying to do everything by the book, which I appreciate. So, I'm in favor. >> Good evening. >> Yeah, I think it's fine. Um, I don't think you need to remove any anything further.
Um, yeah, it's it's great. You're gonna have fun. Good luck with it. Hopefully you get it in by summer. >> Mrs. Amin, >> uh, yeah, it's a a nice application and there's only only one little thing that
they need approval for. I'm in favor of approving it. >> I'm also in favor. Unfortunately, Mr. Wagar small cases get kind of you're sered into big cases and municipal land and use law. You know, this is a modest ask. Unfortunately, you have to post
escrow and and retain professionals because the little cases fall in the same domain as big cases. I'm sorry you had to go through this. Please do not take down your basketball court for this. Please um enjoy your pool. Have a wonderful summer next year and good luck with your project. >> All right, we're going to vote on it
real quick just for formality. Nancy, if we could have a roll call vote, please. Oh, I we need a motion. >> Second, >> Mr. Gayski was second and Mr. Wedelli. >> Sorry, Mr. Jim.
>> Mr. Gabbit, I'm sorry. Chairman Fouse. >> Uh, yes. >> Mr. Wy, >> yes. >> Mrs. Zamin, >> yes. >> Mr. Fresco, >> yes. >> Mr. Bjouro, >> yes. >> Mr. Gayski, >> yes.
All right. Now I can say good luck. >> Thank you. >> You're all you're all invited to the grand opening. >> That's all right. Good night, gentlemen. But thank you. >> All right. Next up, we have uh 797 Country Club Road. Mr. Silver. Good
evening. >> Mr. Pass. Evening, uh, members of the board, board professionals, and members of the public. My name is Michael Silbert, and I'm an attorney with the law firm D. Franchesco Baitman, based out of Warren Township, New Jersey. This evening, I
have the privilege of representing the applicant, Raven Estates LLC, in connection with its application for preliminary and final major subdivision approval, together with associated C and D variance relief. This application concerns property located at block 437, lot four on the township's tax maps,
more commonly known as 797 Country Club Road. Property lies within the township's R40 zone. The track consists of approximately 79,300 square ft, which is nearly double the minimum lot size required in the district and is
presently improved with one single family dwelling that fronts on Country Club Road along the eastern portion of the site. The property has dual frontage both along Country Club Road and the unimproved portion of Eisenhower of the Eisenhower Avenue right ofway.
The application before the board is fairly straightforward. The applicant proposes to subdivide this property into two new lots. Proposed lot 4.01, which will retain the existing single family dwelling fronting on Country Club Road, and proposed lot 4.02, which will front
on Eisenhower Avenue. and at some point in the future accommodate a new single family dwelling. Uh so so the existing dwelling will remain fronting on Country Club Road and it and have access through Country Club Road and the newly created lot um will have its frontage or 4.02
will have frontage and access from Eisenhower Avenue. So we've carefully carefully designed this subdivision so that the proposed lot 4.02, the lot where a new dwelling will one day be built is a fully conforming lot. So by contrast, proposed lot 4.01, the lot
containing the existing home will require lot area variance relief. Again, this lot contains approximately this 39,300 ft² where 40,000 ft is required. So you're looking at a deficiency of just about 700 square ft. And we made
this choice intentionally. Reason being that the board knows precisely what exists on proposed lot 4.01, 1 uh an established home that's been part of the neighborhood for many years. And we felt that the board could use the existing conditions to better
assess whether or not the negative criteria can be satisfied. And by contrast, the board can feel rest assured that the new home to be constructed on lot 4.02, whenever that may be, will fully conform to all of the township zoning requirements and bulk standards. And and we're perfectly
comfortable, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Oler, making that a stipulation of approval this evening. So, I just want to emphasize that we're we're really not necessarily seeking approval for a home that's that hasn't been designed. Rather, we're really asking the board to to approve a fully conforming lot, which
when developed will meet all of the zoning standards, and any future home will be subject to the township standard plot plan review to ensure full compliance with zoning, engineering, and storm water management requirements at the time of submission and construction.
In addition to the lot area variance, this application also under a very technical interpretation of the municipal land use law requires devariance relief pursuant to section 70D5 which relates to density. Um that section applies when an application
results in an increase in the permitted density except in cases where the application involves detached one or two family dwellings on an isolated undersized lot or on a lot created by a minor subdivision. So, in this case, the application uh does involve single
family dwellings, but because of the proposed extension of Eisenhower Avenue, um it it which is technically it technically exists, but it's in paper street form. Uh the subdivision is technically classified as a major
subdivision and not a minor. So, as a result, this triggers D5 density relief. Um but again to be clear as the port's well aware the R40 zone does permit single family dwellings and based upon the track's total area 1.98 dwellings
are permitted and the applicant is proposing two dwellings. So strictly speaking the devariance is triggered for a deviation of only 0.02 dwellings. Um, as the board may recall from reviewing the applications, uh, the application materials, this actually is
not the first time a subdivision application has been made for this property. So, back in 2007, a very similar application was submitted and jurisdiction was similarly conferred upon this very board. The board granted preliminary approval with variance
relief for the same variances being sought this evening. and at at that and um the subdivision, however, was never perfected. So, we've had a significant lapse in time. I will certainly leave the the formal planning testimony to the applicant's expert witness, but I just
wanted to briefly point out that in 2007, this board found that the variance relief could be justified under the hardship criteria. And here's why. the the township required the dedication of about 700 square feet along Country Club Road frontage for the widening of said
road and that small dedication and really just that alone reduced the overall track size just enough to trigger the lot area and density variances before you tonight. Um so if not for that uh municipal taking this application would actually be fully
conforming in every respect. Um, I would also like to remind the board um that this board back in 2007 made a very clear finding and I'm just going to quote it directly. Given the dimminimous nature of the deficiency, the board finds it unreasonable to put the
applicant through the exercise of attempting to acquire additional property or offer their property for sale to adjoining owners. So, the applicant submits that this same principle applies equally here today. The really the only key distinction between what was previously approved in
2007 and what we're applying for today is the proposed extension of Eisenhower Avenue. So the 2007 plan showed the extension coming from the northwest from Roosevelt Street and in this version in this application the extension is actually proposed from the southwest. So
this change came about be it was it was actually in response to some of the professional and neighborhood feedback we received. um there were some concerns coming in from Roosevelt. So, we listened and we adjusted the plan accordingly to address those comments in good faith. Otherwise, you're looking at
pretty much the same application um that was already preliminarily approved and was merely never perfected. So, just before I call my first witness with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to note for the record that we um did receive a number of professional reports. We received a
joint professional review memo from uh Miss Armad and Mr. Burr dated October 9th, 2025. A sore utility memo from Mr. Goenova dated October 6, 2025. And we received a no objections from traffic um your zoning officer from the health from
health, police, and fire. So no comments from any of of those departments. Um there were a number of questions in the joint professional review memo regarding the conceptual dwelling and the bulk standards table. So, if I could just briefly speak to that, the dwelling shown on this on the subdivision plan on
lot 4.02 is purely conceptual. It was really included just to demonstrate how Eisenhower Avenue would logically extend and where it would terminate. So, the bulk standards table in the plan set indicates that the proposed dwelling max the the proposed dwelling on lot 4.02,
the conceptual dwelling maxes out the bulk standards, but that's actually not accurate. the conceptual design does not maximize the bulk standards and Mr. Styrers can address that. Um, but the numbers in the in the U bulk standards table should have used less than or
equal to or greater than or equal to symbols just to demonstrate that the eventual dwelling will fully comply with the bulk standards in the zone. And again, happy to stipulate to that this evening. Um, just so that that's really my
introduction, Mr. chairman and and with your permission. Um I do have two witnesses I'd like to call. The first being Mr. Craig Styers who will present engineering testimony and then we do have a professional planner, Mr. Matt Flynn. I would ask Mr. Oler if you could
just confirm that notice for this application was was proper and adequate and that the board does have jurisdiction in your opinion to hear the application. >> I did review the notice. It's in proper form, was published on time and served timely. So the board has jurisdiction. >> Mr. Silver, can you just confirm if the
school board was notified because this is right against Eisenhower's property, Eisenhower school? >> They weren't noticed. >> I I'm going to I I remember notice noticing them, but I'm going to if you don't mind, I'm going to take >> You can just double check because I had a board member actually call me today and say, "Do we have something that we need to look into?" And I said, "I'm I'm
sure you were noticed." I >> mean, make 100% sure that my >> put that on the record so I am not a liar. Yes, they were. >> They were the first property on my list. >> What are they named as? >> They were they are named as Bridgewater Raritan Board of Education.
>> Perfect. Thank you very much. >> Absolutely. >> Notice is good. >> Notice is good. >> All right. >> Thank you. Want to swear everybody in. >> I have a question first before we get started before you call your witnesses. You said in your opening comments that
you're not asking us to approve a conceptual dwelling. I'm not sure I'm following you here. It seems to me like the application, it's pretty clear as to what you want in terms of creating two separate lots. That part is clear. And then to propose
a dwelling that's not really the dwelling we're going to be seeing means that who are you going to come back to for approval of that dwelling? and you kind of went through it awfully quickly, so I'd like you to slow it down so that I can understand it. >> Yes. Okay. So, the way that the this
subdivision is designed and the way the one in 2007 was designed is that the the lot that requires the the lot area variance is the lot with the existing dwelling and we're not proposing any changes to the existing dwelling. So, with respect to the conceptual dwelling
shown on the fully conforming lot, what I was what I was trying to suggest is that we're not sure exactly what home is going to be built there. We showed a conceptual dwelling for the board so they could see, you know, what a what a home could look like there, the location, how it would interact with the
extension of Eisenhower Avenue. But what I was stipulating to the board is that we can ensure that when a home is eventually developed, it could be 10 years from now, that it'll fully it will fully conform with the R40 zoning requirements. So there's there would be
no setback variance, no F variants, no lock coverage variants. I'm I'm try I'm indicating that we want to build something that fully conforms. >> Right. And I'm I'm just rich from a legal perspective. This does not make this a bifurcated application that he's
asking for two separate >> bifurcated because they're not asking for any variance. What he's saying is when they go for a building permit, there will be no variances associated with the with obtaining a building permit for whatever house they want to build, the house will conform on this
fully conforming lot. >> Okay. >> And uh just to uh add to that, >> you don't have to, but it's okay. Well, I was just going to say that we we still when we go for our building permit still has to comply with the storm water management requirements. So, I we didn't put that on the we didn't submit a storm
water management report, for example, because we don't know I I mean, Mr. Stars will testify to it, but we think it'll be a minor anyway, >> but we didn't address it because I don't know what house is going to be constructed there. >> Right. The the second thing that you discussed in your opening remarks was
the paper street >> um and the extension of that street. So we will have testimony to validate that that that none of that paper street has been vacated and distributed among the property owners up to this point.
And I thought I read somewhere in your documents about who would be responsible for the construction of that street. And that I assume would be your client. >> Correct. >> And I was curious to know and maybe we'll find out in testimony as to
whether a private developer in this case whoever de creates that subdivision would have to build the street before the house and can they build the street to the same standards as the as the municipal entity in this case
Bridgewater would build if it so chose to build that street. And then do you have any further obligation with respect to that street to either create a turnaround or perhaps extend it to its natural conclusion or does that belong
that responsibility belong to somebody else? So you don't have to answer those now, but I think we will have to address them at some point. And Rich, you tell me if I'm off base here. So >> no, not at all. generally and Bill tell me if if it's different here but the
road would need to be constructed prior to the filing of the subdivision map right we're using a myar here for the final >> correct we have >> so you know so before it's a major so yeah so prior to that map being signed and recorded the road would either have
to be fully constructed or fully bonded >> okay thank you >> um one thing I did want to point out is that over time, um, Eisenhower has been improved. So, it's almost like as a home is built, it's extended and and so on.
And, um, so I just wanted to clarify that it's it's a paper street as it exists directly in front of the house, but it is improved prior to the house to the south. Just wanted to clarify that. So, it's um, and we've also I'm just
going to say this to the board. We've received feedback from the neighborhood that they really do not want to see Eisenhower Avenue extended all the way to Roosevelt and that was really the whole purpose for us shifting the extension was to address the neighbors
concern. So I'm just for for the board's edification I am letting you know that that's that's the feedback we received. Um but I will hope to address your comments with our with our testimony very shortly. >> Thank you.
My question is that uh let's say this subdivision is approved and uh the owner is a Raven Estates. Will they be the ones who will build another house or will they sell the lot to someone else?
>> So here's how I'll answer that question. So as as Mr. er just pointed out Raven would have to um either sell the entire tract or he would have to do the root road improvements himself. My clients represented to me that he does intend to
construct the dwelling on the on the vacant lot or what would be the vacant lot. Um but ultimately I I don't know because that's certainly my client's representation to me that he intends to do it. But I I'm not certain if a year and a half from now that there, you
know, something could change, but that's his intention is to build the home on that lot and not and not sell it beforehand. >> If they're going to sell the lot to someone, it's easier to sell >> 40,000 square ft. Uh the new owner will
say, "Okay, it's it complies with the requirements." Uh if it is smaller then >> well and in addition to that obviously if we sold a 39,300 foot lot that was vacant that person would be right back before this board. >> So
>> um >> is your developer the one that did the two houses to the south that already extended Eisenhower? >> No, right? >> But the developer and the owner is is here. >> Just curious. All right. Thank you. >> I have I have a question. So just so I
understand the current home on the existing lot as it is right now is fully conforming. >> Um yes it is fully conforming. However uh when the subdivision takes place then it will be on an undersized lot but it will conform with everything else with
the exception of the fact that 4.01 would be undersized by 700 square feet. >> So so that's what I wanted to clarify. So, basically, if we vote on this to approve it, if it gets approved, we're voting to We're voting to create a non-conforming lot. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Mhm. >> We're good. >> You're good. Good. So, >> so let's go first witness. Yeah. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> You want to do you want to swear? Yeah. >> You know, I kind of prefer doing them as they come up, frankly. No worries.
Right. Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. >> And your name for the record, please. >> S T I R. Yes. >> And Mr. Styers, you've testified before
this board and you've been accepted as a expert in the field of engineering. Your license is in good standing. >> Yes. >> All right. The board has no objections. Good to see you again, Mr. Steyers. Good evening. So, >> Mr. Styers, uh, you oversaw and prepared the subdivision plan before the board
this evening. You're quite familiar with it, correct? >> Yes. >> Um, can you walk the board through the proposal? >> Sure. Um, actually Mike did a pretty good job of stealing my most of my testimony, but I will reiterate. Um the
lot 37 lot 4 and is on the westly side of country club road just south of property actually in the early 70s was an 80,000 square foot lot. Um, as Mike
mentioned, in approximately 1977, the town came through and did a taking of approximately 4.375 ft along Country Club Road for virtually, you know, probably a dozen or
more lots. Um, and then which ultimately created the lot size that we have today with the 79,300. Um, additionally, um, as Mike said, the property was subdivided in, plans are
dated 2006, I guess, finalized in 2007. As far as the subdivision is concerned, it's identical to that uh, application. And when we first submitted the application um, this year, it everything was identical. We did go to um Roosevelt
Street uh same as the previous application and you know we did get the feedback um to switch that to the south um for one another reason is that there was a major
subdivision to the south that created two new lots which also extended Eisenhower um Avenue up to the um the lot basically adjacent to us to the south. So there was a full roadway
constructed by the developer curb on our side, no curb on the school side, sidewalk on our side. Um the sanitary sewer was extended. Uh there were utilities or are utilities already in Eisenhower Avenue that go all the way
through to Roosevelt Street, uh including water and gas. Um, so what we did was we flipped our access point to extend from the south to our site. So it's kind of like a mirror image of what the previous application
was. So you had not only the previous application or approval for this particular lot, but then you had also the subdivision to the south kind of um what generated what we have before us tonight. Craig, do you know if the um subdivision that was approved to the
south had the same type of uh deviations? And if you don't know, that's okay. But do you know if there was a lot area issue with that one? >> Uh no, they look like they were both conforming. There actually was a lot line adjustment to a lot further to the south. So, uh Okay. You know, just that
arrangement. Um so that that lot furthest to the south may have had been an undersized lot with the adjustment. But as far as the questions of you know the developer building the rot lot within the right ofway same exact situation would be this situation as
well. Um so I hopefully that answers your question. >> Um yeah I just will will say that the um 2007 appro well first of all there would you say that there's a turnaround or a culde-sac proposed in connection with the extension? So, what happened with
our particular subdivision in 2007 there, if you uh and we also kind of put it back on the plans, there's an access easement at around the driveway. So, the driveway is oversized so that a firetruck could come into the driveway
and be able to turn around. So the original application for this particular lot had that situation and the subdivision to the south has the exact same situation. The the lot the driveway coming in has like a 50 foot depressed
curb. So what happens is the truck can pull into the driveway back out and be able to turn around. And we are replicating that situation on our particular application. So you you saw from the 2007 um application that uh
there was an exception granted by the board for RSIS compliance as a dimminimous exception with respect to a culde-sac and you're are you saying that there there's a there is a safe means for a firetruck to turn around in what you're proposing?
>> Yes. I mean I did look up the RSIS tonight with that particular instance. It's very vague as far as the requirement per se. Um but the um I believe it's the the fire code for New
Jersey does require a access point and a turnaround similar to what we we are providing. So if we needed the exception to because sometimes there's vagueness in the RSIS, believe it or not, >> um to request that just to be on the
safe side, but I believe we comply. So to the extent that it's necessary, we're asking the board to grant an exception to the culde-sac requirements in RSIs. Um Mr. Styers, your testimony is you don't necessarily believe that's
necessary, but to the extent it is >> correct. >> Okay. Um I'm just going to go through some of the comments in the professional review memo. So there's uh a shed that's on the property. Can you just talk about what's what's going to happen to that shed? Yeah, I visited the site again
today and it's it's almost too dilapidated to stand up by itself. So that that'll be coming down uh should the application be approved. >> Great. And uh I had made representations about the bulk standards and it being maxed out. Can you just speak to that
for a moment with respect to the conceptual dwelling? >> Sure. Um what I tried to uh relay as far as the requirements on the zoning table is that it h it will meet the standards. So that's the reason I showed the the full aotment of this 50
the setbacks the lot coverage and the F as far as the plan that what we have on the plan right now that is uh as far as the impervious coverage is 10.9%. the F for that house that is
conceptually shown is less than point.1.1. So there is a substantial amount left to be developed if they wanted to. But again, we wanted to show one the access point and how it would be done. And then if a house that would be reasonable in
size, similar to what the houses are next door, this is what it would look like. >> Thank you. And I'm just going to go through the the list here. So, um there are encumbrances on the property, but in in Is that true? There are there are uh
easements, right? >> Uh there's an easement along Country Club Road. Um we are proposing easements on our side as far as we are again granting would be granting a uh sidewalk easement along the frontage along the
Eisenhower side and then also that access easement to allow for the fire truck access. But as far as other encumbrances like wetlands, flood hazard areas, slopes, there there are no um encumbrances that would impact the
building envelope of the proposed for lot 4.02, right? >> No, that we um we did have Ed Cook from Eastern States Environmental um visit the site, evaluate the site as far as potential wetlands. um we supplied the
letter as part of our application that he um said that they it did not meet the criteria for any wetlands on the property. >> Yeah. And that and that was that report was included in our submission. Um
regarding street trees, um there's a comment in there saying that it that we'll provide street trees in accordance with uh subsection or 191.8 8 subsection 13 A through E. Um,
speak to the street trees because we're on the on the the applicant for a dwelling on 4.02 will have to comply with the street trees ordinance and landscaping ordinance. >> Well, we did show four street trees on the Eisenhower side. And what the
applicant did on the south side of the subdivision to the south rather than putting them on their lot, they put them on the school side. So we decide to to mirror that. So what what you have is somewhat of a buffering along the school
property, which I think is a a very good idea. So, we continued what they started to the south and we have four trees on that side of the property rather than on the the house side of the property. Um, obviously, uh, we'll stipulate to
complying with all binding bonding requirements set forth in the MLUL under section 53. Um, that was a comment. >> How do you go about getting the school district to approve that? Well, you're saying it would be in the rightway, right? It >> would be in the rightway, but they still they may have an objection to this. The
type of trees they >> How do we make sure they're okay with this? Because I don't want to >> Well, again, they'll be in the rightway. >> What's that? >> It would be in the right way. >> It would be in the rightway. So, they they would have no say. So, you could plant something they theoretically don't want. >> Well, like you said, you want trees in this township.
>> I I that's what I'm I'm getting at. Like I I really I'm trying to think of a buffer that we can create. I liked how the development to the south does have trees. I'd like to continue that up. >> Um I just want to make sure that we're in compliance whatever Bridgewater Riden School District is doing.
>> Well, again, we're we're really doing >> Can we match with the town? >> How about we match the type of trees that are >> I think we have. Yeah, I think we did anyway. >> We could stipulate to that, too. >> Perfect. All right. Thank you. >> Absolutely. Um Okay. Um
so, we don't have any architecturals. Um, can you speak to just a moment as to what you anticipate what what's what's likely to be constructed on this property because we've already represented that it's going to conform. So, um, I I mean, again, I can't speak to
the architect. I would I would think it would be consistent with the two to the south. Actually, four to the south because you actually have two that face country club and two that face Eisenhower. And those four houses are very similar to each other as far as
architecture. So honestly it would I would think it'd be something similar. >> And um as far as whether and there again there's no chosen footprint yet and we don't know the level of disturbance but do you have any idea if this is going to be a major or minor development from a
storm water management perspective? >> Um the extension in the road and the improvements that we have shown are less than 10,000 square feet. So it's doesn't increase it by a quarter acre and the disturbance which I think is pretty uh
you know the grading and it's it's not that we just showed a house we showed the grading and everything that was 28,000 square feet. So that's less than an acre. So the entire project would be a minor project as far as storm water is concerned. Okay. >> Craig, how how does the slope happen
here from the property to five to lot 01 to 501? Is it north to south? >> It drains. >> You're talking about the property of the north. >> I I'm I'm more in question. Obviously, all the properties are important, but uh
4375.01 property if you're facing the house that's already built to the left, so to the south. >> Yes. >> Can I mark this? >> Yeah. What's Let what's >> Yeah. Why don't we mark that A1, please?
And then just before you answer that question, just describe A1 for the record. >> Um, it is a great the it's entitled grading utility soil erosion control plan rendering and it is basically the grading plan with an aerial underneath
it. So you can see the improvements over what is essentially out there now. So your question the drainage. >> Yeah. Water flow. >> Yeah. All these lots drain from Country Club to Eisenhower.
>> Okay. So east to west. >> So these guys all go this way. Our lot our lot drains to the back. It is somewhat flat in the back. But again, we're kind of pushing it around the house, but it it still maintains that flow path of the existing condition. So
you think there's minimal impact to lot 01 50.01 to the south. >> That would be this one. >> No. >> The one on Country Club >> bottom right. >> Yeah. >> No impact at all. >> Okay. >> This is this would be uphill. >> Thank you. >> So this this house would impact this
house. Our existing house may impact ours but uh but no. >> All right. So, and the house that is on Eisenhower is a newer developed property that would meet higher threshold of workflow standards. Yes. >> This one is draining kind of southwest.
>> And that's a new development. That's a new project. >> Yes. >> Got it. >> The the high point if um Eisenhower Avenue were to be constructed, the high point would be right here. So, this drains this way. This drains this way. >> Okay.
>> To the north and to the south. >> Perfect. Thank Thank you very much. >> Yep. Uh Craig, how about do you think that the proposal will impact um let's just assume for argument sake that proposed lot 4.02 is built out to the maximum permitted lot coverage for
example. Do you have concerns that that would negatively impact lot one to the north on Roosevelt? >> Um no one we've put a swell here. So I think actually we don't have the too
much um too many contours on this um but I believe this slopes up a little bit. So essentially there would be a swale along the property line that would continue to the west. Okay. So, so your so your testimony is that even
if it was built to the to the maximum permitted under the ordinance that you don't have any concerns that there would be runoff or drainage directed towards a lot one to the north? >> No. Does the the proposal for the extension
of the road does that include some form of storm drain drainage some way to move water from remove water from the road in a way that it doesn't impact any of the adjacent properties? >> Um this is the extension right here and
this would be consistent to what is out there now. So there'd be a a crown in the road. So, this half would drain down um probably to where it intersects with the driveway to Eisenhower School and I believe there's an inlet there. Um the
other half would just drain into the grass area of the school. >> So, so the road itself >> north and south this lot would not impact those two those lots, >> right? But a as the construction of the road as you would propose, it does not
have then any additional drainage built into the road that you're constructing. >> No. >> Um All right. So, as far as the conditions between this application and the 2007 one, um all of the conditions that are
applicable to this application, we can comply with um some of the conditions from the 2007 approval. Um it was the installation of sidewalks along Eisenhower Avenue or to make a contribution to the township sidewalk fund, one or the other. And the amount
of the contribution is to be determined by the township engineer. So, we can comply with that. Um, how about the the sidewalks on Country Club Road? You have you seen the sidewalks? Did you feel that they were in decent condition, at least as it relates to proposed lot
4.01, the existing sidewalk? >> Yes, I think it's in in in good condition overall. I mean, if there's something there's a bad spot or, you know, one of the the slabs, there's something wrong with it, we can repair it. But I think overall, I think the sidewalk is in good condition
>> to uh we would stipulate, Mr. er to um repairing the sidewalk if necessary, if determined necessary by um township engineer, board engineer um but only to the extent that there's, you know, it needs repair. We don't want to just replace it, but if there's some area
that's identified that needs something, we'll certainly repair it. That was a comment in I believe Mr. Burr's uh portion of the memo. Um see there was any other things from the old uh resolution. Oh, the other
resolution focused on um water service. So, Mr. Styers, um current day there's water to the property 4.02, proposed lot 4.02. >> There is water uh all the way through Eisenhower Avenue. So, we would just
connect with the water service uh into the right of way. >> I I'm bringing that up because that was a main focus of the conditions from 2007 where originally 4.02 2 was to be serviced by well and that doesn't seem to be applicable. Um
the other conditions that I felt that would be difficult to comply to were the conditions from the old professional reports. I felt that you know we could just stipulate to complying with um the more up-to-date joint review memo. There was a developers agreement that had to be executed and we have we take no issue
to that um since public improvements are required. And the other condition was the submission of a standard compliance report which is still a condition today. So there shouldn't be any uh issues with complying with the 2007 conditions of approval. Um
>> is that a Scarlet Doyle letter in 2007? >> It is. Um yeah. So I guess Mr. to the extent applicable we can comply with all of the conditions in the 2007 resolution. Um, so can you talk about uh
whether or not utilities would be underground for proposed lot 4.02? >> We don't show utilities, right? >> Yes, we do. >> Oh, you do? Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yes, we have gas, water, we have the sewer coming out to uh country club and
I believe there is a pole um in the corner so we could come in underground. Okay. So, we can comply with that. >> Before we jump off of utilities, so you have a sanitary sewer easement running through, you know, the existing lot, which will become 4.01, right?
>> Yes. >> So, just to be clear, that easement is only going to serve the new lot. It's really not an easement to the municipality because the municipality is not going to take any ownership interest of that line until it crosses into the rideway.
>> Right. Yes, sir. >> Um, >> so Michael, it'll just be a form easement that would be subject to our review. Okay, >> perfect. Um, there was a comment about the fence a fence being located in that easement
area. Um, do we It's going to remain I I assume it's not impacting the easement area. Is that accurate? Oh yeah. I mean, we could probably stipulate and when we write the e easement agreement up, you know, if if
it if it needs to be repaired, it >> Oh, yeah. If if the comment was to whether the fence needs to be repaired that we can repair it, but I think the comment was more whether it would impact the easement area, but I don't I don't imagine it would. >> I would expect that we put the lateral in and then you could put the fence
back. >> Okay. Um, we'll certainly confirm the lot number >> before we move off of that bill. Is there any objection with a fence over the top of the easement? >> Okay. >> Make sure the mic is on. Our ordinance um does have some restrictions about
placing fences in easements. There's a provision of the ordinance that actually actually requires a fence agreement be approved by the township engineer and it's basically the homeowner acknowledging that if any time in the future the township now I know we just
established this isn't a township easement but um it does give us a right to go in and and not restore it the way it was if necessary. It doesn't really apply here, but as long as it's not blocking drainage in any kind in this case, I don't have a problem with it.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Um I we've already touched upon the the 34T by 50 foot access easement shown on the southwest corner of proposed lot 4.02. Um we will certainly confirm with a tax assessor prior to perfecting the subdivision the lot
numbering. We do. >> I'm sorry again, but before we move off that access easement again, that 34 by 50, >> can can you just so on A1? All right. On your rendering,
>> is it highlighted on there any place? >> It is right here. >> Okay. So, is it intended to be paved? >> Yes. >> Okay. And since it's a turnaround for a firet
truck, is there going to be no parking in that area >> if need be? I mean, the the requirements I've seen when I looked them up today as far as the fire code, >> yeah, >> this roadway is required to be a minimum
of 20 feet. We have 28 feet. So, it's oversized. Um it's just again it's a similar condition that which is out here. It's just really an this one is a extended depressed curb.
So I mean we can put up no parking signs and we can even you know stripe this area if need be. I mean it's kind of a >> the striping part. >> Yeah. I think striping could be >> like kind of ugly, you know, and it just need but maybe Bill, what do you think?
No parking signs on that area. Is that necessary? >> Um, it's a >> to admit repeat. >> Okay. So, it's a turnaround. We're talking about the 50 by 34 easement area. >> Yes. >> It's going to be paved and the purpose of it is so a fire truck can turn
around, right? And because there's no culde-sac in the road, >> right? So, no parking signs in that area. It's not it's not the most pleasant thing to look at, but I think it's probably something that should be considered.
>> Yeah. >> Being that that that speaks to >> yellow fire truck to get in and out, >> I think it's I think it's reasonable to have a sign there. >> I mean, we could really just put it right at the end because that's the key part is for them to back out here and pull out. >> So, you can just put a single no parking
at the end. Well, and it's kind it's kind of for the person who's in that house, right? >> Yeah. >> Because that's who I can see parking there. >> Right. >> Right. So, >> he parks there. >> But there needs to be some enforcement
of the no parking. Right. >> Right. >> Is it I thought that this was um would be a public road though, right? Wouldn't wouldn't enforcement be >> Well, the road is public, >> not the ement's not. Yeah.
>> Right. Right. >> Right. >> If it's a public road, so you build it, you give it to Bridgewater and then we're stuck with it to maintain it to in in perpetuity. Once you build it, you're
done. >> We bond for it. >> But yes. >> Okay. And so if the township then decided that they could um establish a no parking area, then that would be something that we as the zoning board
would do or that the township would do. >> So you're talking about two different things, right? So the the public road, yes. Okay. But the easement area is not a public road. >> That's part of the driveway.
>> It's Yeah, it's in it's in lot 4.02. Oh, I see your concern is more the the easement than the road. >> I'm more concerned about the easement area and someone parking there because if I'm the owner of 4.02 and I have multiple cars and that's a nice paved area where I can just put a couple of
cars all the time, it's on my property, right? So, what's going to stop me from doing that and having the purpose of it kind of taken away? So there should be maybe um you know an easement that's
going to impact you know be recorded against 4.02 and I think we could give um the municipality the right to enforce no parking on that private lane the same way you would in say a condominium
masterdeed, right? That and because the municipality can have enforcement rights over certain areas there. So maybe, you know, Mike, we can work on the language if you're okay with >> absolutely that condition so that you know the municipality has authority to
enforce no parking in that area and it would be recorded so that the lot owner would be aware. >> That's totally fine. >> Okay, >> it's interesting. I when I looked at this final plat, there was no easement, but there was one for this approval. So
I I agree with you. I think it to to its benefits >> it's kind of different because you get to the end of the road and now what so you know if if you're relying on that in lie of a culde-sac I think you need to protect it somehow >> I agree
>> now Bill in terms of culde-sac exemption who's to say they need a storm water great yes or no I mean what if you come back on a review and say you know what we looked at this the 28 additional feet we do need a storm water great installed here. Um I'm not prepared to have that
exemption cover that storm water. >> Yeah, I I I know when the initial Well, Eisenhower, as Craig alluded to, was really built in two phases. The the original one that provides access to the school and then maybe in 2000 or or so
give 2020, excuse me. Um the latest extension was constructed for the two new homes. I do know drainage was extended up to where it splits to continue to the school and where the new
>> I didn't see any sewer grates on the extension. >> Not on the new extension at the beginning of the new extension. >> That's why I'm concerned. >> The beginning. So, you know, RSIS allows you to go up to 400 ft between inlets. >> Okay. >> Um, we're probably pushing that limit,
>> right? I but I just don't want this exemption this culde-sac exemption to exempt you from potential storm water great installation. If you decide that there needs to be a storm water installation then by all means so this exemption we're talking about here does not include sto include storm water. >> No. >> Fair enough. >> Got it.
>> And uh if to whatever the board engineer recommends if he feels it's necessary to add we we would agree to do that. >> Everything's going to be under his review and if you Okay. >> Thank you. >> Sure. Um, yeah, I I don't really have anything
further. We didn't we didn't receive any comments back from the county yet. Um, as we already stated, this is going to be perfected by map filing because it's a major subdivision. So, we really have no choice. The only other thing I could think of is the the sore utility
comments. Um, Craig, you reviewed it and you you didn't we we can comply with everything, right? >> Yes. >> No concerns. So, um I think Craig, I don't have anything further for you. >> I think I think one of the other conditions would be that it has to come
in from the south. You know, the layout or the extension of the road. I mean, you can't switch it over. The the approval has to be coming in from the south. >> Was the previous approval Roosevelt Street approved? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, this is going to supersede that?
>> Yes. >> Is that possible? >> Yes. even though that the approval runs with the land. >> Well, yeah, but here it expired, right? So, but they didn't perfect, sorry, they didn't perfect it. >> Okay. >> So, um I'll just make sure this resolution will just say that that prior
approval is now null and this one is is what they're proceeding with >> and you stipulate to that. >> Yeah, I mean I was thinking about how to prepare this application honestly if you it wasn't classified as an amended or any way, but we certainly stipulate to that. Absolutely.
>> MLUL doesn't talk about amended either. So that's right. It's a new application. It's uh you know, we're just going to modify. >> Well, I was quite honestly I wasn't sure if I should just go in for for final and I I wasn't really because the the way the ordinance is the variances have
lapsed. The variances have expired, but technically the preliminary subdivision it's not protected against zone changes, but >> and there were no zone changes. >> There were no zone changes. So, I struggled with preparing this because of >> those reasons. >> We'll deal with it as a new application
and a waiver, if you will, >> from the applicant of its prior. >> Okay. >> But you you spend a lot of time talking about accepting the conditions that had attached themselves to the previous approval. And if that approval is void,
we're essentially asking for those same conditions as part of your new application. Mhm. And >> and and if the board engineer and or the planners had additional restrictions or things they're asking you to stipulate
to, that's what we should be considering this evening as well. >> In other words, just because they did it, how many years ago? 18 17 what was it? >> Uh it was 2007. So 18 years ago. >> Yeah. So just because they did it 18 years ago doesn't mean that Oh, yeah.
That's a great idea. I should agree. Um, but some of them are reasonable and we might and we might very well refer to the the board in the past and say, "Yeah, that's okay." But we might have some new ones as well. >> I'm all ears on on new uh concerns that the board has. We're we're certainly
open to uh new conditions if if it's necessary and to the extent to the 2007 conditions to the extent that they are applicable to this subdivision, um we're happy to comply with them. >> Right. Okay. And they'll all be separately enumerated in the new resolution.
>> Yes. >> Any other board questions? All right. Before we get to board professionals, I want to open up to members of the public because they have questions that I think may be helpful to your testimony. So, members of the public, questions. >> Yeah, please. Just need your name and
address and any questions you have on the testimony of Mr. Styrers. >> Mr. F chairman. Uh, my name is Roy Asher. I am the owner of lot one in the same block. So, the one up the north. Um, yeah. And I was here to see if I
might be able to uh seek some consult with professionals just to make sure we're crossing tees, dotting eyes with some of the observations I've seen in the past happen there. So, at the time where they took the um trees down and built the two properties to the south,
we started seeing more water approaching myot. um which demanded some remediation in the area and I had to put a little French train at the time John was there the owner nice old guy so we resolved it real quick and you know it's stable
I have no concerns at this at this point with the way that we are established should there be anything happening there I wanted to do my due diligence and it is today I am religious enough to have to go to sh and I'm here this is how important this is to me and so I just
want to make sure that we are indeed doing the due diligence be it the town experts professionals protecting us here. Um if there is any water concerns if you see anything there please oh please let's make sure that we're working together to establish some
solutions here so we don't have to deal with in the future. >> Is your house depicted on that exhibit that we referred to >> the one up north? >> Would you point it out please? So, you're adjacent to that, right? >> And how is it that you're able to access
your house along Are you accessing it? >> I'm on Roosevelt Street, sir. >> I'm sorry. >> On Roosevelt Street. >> On Roosevelt Street. Okay. Gotcha. And so, what you're concerned about, if I'm hearing you correctly, is there any impact on your home, which is adjacent
to the proposed improvement or house that may be built? Um, and that's what you're asking our board professionals to pay attention to and see if there are any requirements that could be imposed on this developer that would protect you. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay.
So, I after you're done speaking, I would ask the board professionals to respond to that as well. >> Thank you. I'm done. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Board professionals. Um, drainage on this property is my
biggest concern as well. I know that when the two new homes to the south were constructed. I didn't hear anything from I don't recall hearing anything from this gentleman to the north, but I did hear from folks to the south on Steeplechase.
And the developer of those two homes did do some additional drainage improvements on those lots that I'm hopeful have addressed or at least improved those conditions down on Steeplechase. So that that's an issue that that I'm certainly
concerned with. Craig's plan, the way it's constructed right now, does not show any drainage improvements. Um, but we heard through his testimony that they'd be willing to address any any drainage requirements that we have.
One concern that I do want to raise and and maybe it's a a question for Craig is, you know, when I take a look at the plan here, um the extension of Eisenhower creates 4,200 square feet of new impervious coverage.
And then you said the way it's drawn with the current house on your plan in total you're at 10,000 square feet which I agree if that's the way this is built you're a minor development. The problem is
if somebody comes in here after the roads extended and they build this instead to the max allowed at 18%. then that kicks you over a quarter percent and then actually or a quarter
acre, excuse me, and then actually you're a major development. So, I think there needs to be some more definition. It can't just be, you know, we're g we're gonna comply with the max 18% coverage because if
somebody does build it to the max 18% that makes this a major development and then we have an issue that you guys got to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to manage that runoff. So I think if if the proposal is to build the extension and the board is okay with
that, then I think there there needs to be a restriction on the coverage cap that's going to be going to be built to on lot 402 to keep you under that major major development threshold.
If that makes sense >> there. Yeah. But you can't you can't bifurcate those two issues if you're being if you're seeking an approval now and your road extension and the potential which your plan shows to max
out the home on 402 even if they get built at a different time you don't treat them separately it's new coverage as of this date that makes it a major so I don't think you can I don't think you can say 18% is is what is the maximum we
can build to? Yes, under conventional zoning it is, but because you're extending the road, you have to account for that as well. >> Can I um take one brief moment? I just want to ask >> Well, why why don't we take a quick break? >> You know, it's about about time. It's uh
8:53. Why don't we take Let's call it till 9:00. All right. Thank you. All right. Miss Zamin >> here. >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes. Here. >> Mr. Bonjouro >> here. >> Mr. Gi >> here. >> Mr. CCAT
>> here. >> Here. >> Mr. Gabbit >> here. >> And all our professionals are here. All right. Mr. Silver, >> thank you for for granting us some time to do some quick math because we were trying to uh reflect uh Mr. Burr's
concerns with respect to the 4200 increase associated with the extension of Eisenhower Avenue. So, we did some quick math and what we what we determined is that if um the lot coverage on 4.02 02 were to exceed 16.7%
that would constitute a major for storm water management purposes. So based upon that we would agree to have in the resolution that if uh the development on lot 4.02 exceeds 16.7% the uh developer would have to comply
with the major storm water management regulations. if that is acceptable um to the board and the board's professionals. That's that's something we're trying to do to recognize the increase in impervious coverage associated with >> All right. And just to put in language
for members of the public that are here, you're essentially capping the improvement at 16.7% which would be a smaller uh building footprint, >> right? >> Hopefully negate any impacts to adjacent properties.
>> Correct. And if and if it were to and again only 18% is permitted. If it were to exceed 16.7 again it can only go to 18% then that would bring into play a whole different set of stormwater management regulations. >> And hypothetically if you wanted to go
to 16.8% bill would they have to come back to the board or they would just work this out with the town and they would just they would just opt into major storm water development? Well, I think I think if if the board conditions it upon 16.7, if they want to go above that, not
only do they have to comply with the stormwater regs, they also have to would they'd have to come back to the board? >> It would have Yeah, I agree. It would have to alter the condition and the resolution is back. >> Okay, >> that's good. That's perfect. Okay. >> For a house to hit like to remain under
that 16.7, would that be comparable in size to the houses on either side or would that be substantially smaller? Well, just to clarify, we're talking about impervious coverage as well, right? >> Yes. >> So, uh I'll I'll let you answer that question, but like technically you could build a a really tiny house and have a
lot of imperous coverage, but I think I think ultimately, yes, that's >> true. You want to >> Yeah. I mean, I think I think in the long run, you're probably going to see something similar to what we have because you can see it's similar in nature to the house to the south. And again, that's a pretty good size house
that's that was built. So, I think that as far as the consistency, um, so right now, like I said, that shown right there is 11%. So, if you put a pool back there or something like that, you still have room to put the pool kind of like the
professionals were saying in their review letters, there's still room to do those things and still not go over that that threshold. >> That's that's only initially. >> Thank you. when they build initially. So if anybody, you know, someone buys a house and then they come back at some
other point and that goes over the 16 points. I mean, if you're going right up to the limit there, that's kind of >> Yeah, it's a good point in terms of how will they know. >> Yeah. >> So you could deed restrict the lot in deed notice. Yeah, we'll do a deed
notice so that any buyer is on notice because it will come up in his title searches um when they purchase the property. >> What's the big difference of what has to be done if it's a major minor? >> It's it's a big deal. >> I didn't
>> I guess that's my concern is why we're >> and and we have a resident here that's basically saying they have issues with storm water on their property. We we didn't we didn't talk about the specific differences, but if if you can picture uh a large commercial development that
we've seen, several of them lately that increase the coverage by 10,000 square feet, a quarter acre, or disturb more than an acre, you're talking large and very expensive storm water features needing to be constructed.
>> And that's the 2100 testimony that they they go to, right? the inland flood rules with the future storms, the the storm water quantity quality requirements, recharge requirements, there's a bunch of high thresholds that need to be met, and most of them come
with a pretty substantial cost. So, if you're talking, you know, a 12 lot major subdivision, which we're likely not going to see anytime soon here, but more so on the commercial end, that's that's where your head's at. One of the suggestions that I was going to have, if
if you read Katherine and my my memo on on page nine, not only do I talk about the major development storm water threshold, we took the recess here and now we're hearing from the applicant that they would agree to stay under that
threshold. So, we're not talking about that big major storm water issue like we were just talking about a second ago. Now, what we're talking about is one home and a and a driveway and maybe a patio or a deck, swimming pool in the
backyard. So now, if you take a look at our memo, page nine, there's an existing there's an existing um runoff standards section of our ordinance that really speaks to minor projects and it doesn't get into specificity. Really, all it
does is speak to not negatively impacting your neighbors. So that's kind of the the where we're at now. And one of the things that I would suggest is for a house like this on a minor project.
If the soils are sufficient or if the soils work, you're talking about dry wells. You might be talking about rain gardens, smaller um individual single family kind of lot storm water features which still come at an expense, but they
can still be very effective if we have the right soil conditions. So, I think that's where we're at and that's why I thought it was important that we get under that major development threshold. Otherwise, this plan essentially needs to be completely reworked. So, they've
agreed to stay under that threshold. Now, I think we need to take it one step further and have the applicant agree to manage the runoff on their individual lot. We're managing the roof runoff, some of the driveway runoff, and I think
that's really what's going to help protect some of the surrounding properties. >> I get that, but I'm just saying you're saying that 16.7 once you go to 16.71, that's it. major we got, you know, major expenses we need. So like we're gonna be why I just questioning why we're going
right to the limit where it needs it changes. >> Well, that I mean that that is the limit, >> right? Um certainly how they go about developing the lot to get to that limit is up to the applicant or the future the
future developer >> conditions that were right for that like in that area like does it >> well not I mean >> went to that to that limit would would do we really need is that just something that gets triggered or is it something that it really needs to be in there for
that area otherwise there's a problem >> the board can certainly ask the applicant to go to a little bit lower threat threshold. If if we're concerned about >> pushing it right to the limit of 16.7, you can ask them to go to 15. >> The act >> I don't want to be arbitrary nor capriccious.
>> And uh the actual number was 16.725. So I tried not to push it to that. I gave a little >> I'm just I'm just ask if you're going right to that limit and anything changes. >> Yeah. >> What have we done? Rather than to pick a number out, I' I'd rather focus on the second half of what Bill mentioned is
rain gardens and some dry wells because it does sound like you have a neighbor that here has put onto testimony that while it may not be significant massive flooding, there's still some rainwater effects onto their property. Mr. Styers testified that there is a bit of east to west, east to west, north uh drainage
issues. So, I think to Bill's point, I think maybe we can pick something up and rather than just make it 165, which is a nice round number. >> Yeah. um stick to the 167 and let's talk about some drainage and some solutions in in that respect. >> I think that I I would feel comfortable
I would just confirm with my client, but I would feel comfortable stipulating to that upon submission of a plot plan um that at Mr. Burr's discretion if he wants us to add any drywalls, we can certainly accommodate it. I I I just want to make sure that members of the public that do come out and then put onto the record that they're having some
rainwater issues on their property that they they leave here feeling satisfied that we, you know, we just didn't leave it up to, you know, an anonymous person they never met until tonight. So, I I I do want to say that that does include up to, you know, drywalls, which are expensive and, you know, it could be
substantial cost to your client. >> I I would say yes. And I mean again I think Bill mentions it in his review saying at the time of plot plan and we would that would be a condition of some additional um stormwater measures such as a rain garden. I don't think dry
wells would work in this partic I mean the soils in in Bridgewater are >> they're not dry well soils. Yep. But if we try something other than some sort of storm water controls, we would agree to that and and Bill Bill and I can work
that out. >> All right. And just so members of the public that do come out that they're leaving here that we're going to improve and this is your testimony, you're the expert, not me, that we're going to net improve the storm water situation on these properties. >> Yes. >> They'll be better than what they are. >> Yes. >> Today. >> Agreed.
>> You okay with that? >> I am. >> All right. Mr. Gy, you good? All right. What are we specifying? >> Take us through it, Bill. >> I'm sorry, Bruce. I didn't I didn't hear the question. >> Uh board member, >> you specifying >> 16.7
>> 16.7 is the max percentage that lot proposed lot 402 can be developed to for the lot coverage. So has to stay under 16.7. The ordinance allows up to 18%.
>> Okay. They're going to stay under 16.7 on on lot 402, but they're also going to install individual storm water facilities on this lot to capture and manage the runoff from the imperous
surfaces that are proposed. So, they can develop up to 16.7, but whatever they develop in that window, they're going to manage the runoff on this lot from. Does that make sense? Are we do we something mentioned about deed restricting? Do we
need to do that? >> I think you should because I think it's a fair point that the owner might not even become aware of it. It gets, you know, the resolution just gets put in the file and then over time it would go
away perhaps. But if the but if there's a a deed notice place of record then every time the property sells that would come up and it would be pretty prevalent in a title search. Um >> if I may I didn't I would prefer not to
have it be a deed restriction. I'd rather it be more of a deed notice where I can reference the resolution number and say that per resolution >> do it as a notice. Yeah. Yeah. It would be a notice. Right. So it's a deed notice that basically says to hey take notice that there is this restriction of
16.7 maximum impervious coverage on this lot and you can't exceed that though the ordinance might be larger than that >> but that includes um bill your requirements for the storm water management so that
>> we're trying to avoid having them become a major subdivision because of the expenses associated with that but we're saying that you can only go up to that max number as long as they provide some storm water management plan for the property as it
exists now so as not to make it worse for the neighbor who's here today saying I'm already getting water on the property. >> Are we going to suggest what storm water management options they might utilize? >> I don't I don't think the board needs to
suggest the specific options. I think there's a number of different ways they can they can manage the runoff. Some of which frankly are going to depend on the soil conditions on the property. So Craig is going to need to do a little bit of work to determine what the most appropriate measure is. But it could be
any number of of different different um features, but I I don't think we need to get into specifics. As long as Richcraft's a condition that addresses the spirit of what we need, I think we'd be covered. Okay. Y >> I'm okay. >> All right.
>> We have to comply with your ordinance anyways. >> All right. The testimony was yours. >> I totally interrupted it. >> That's okay. Um I don't have anything else on the drainage unless unless there's any questions for me, but I had
just two other quick questions for Craig. Um, Craig, the testimony was for proposed lot 402, you want to connect to the sewer in Country Club, right? And that's that's the whole discussion about
the private sanitary sewer easement, >> correct? That was also shown on the previous approval. So, >> I should know this and I'm embarrassed to say that I I don't off the top of my head. Do you know is that the section of Country Club that was just resurfaced?
Was this just repaved in this area? Are you outside of those limits? >> Possibly. >> Yeah. I mean, the al the alternative is there is a sanitary sewer in front of the lot to the south. >> Okay. >> Uh I would prefer not to extend the main if we can bring a lateral from from
there into our lot. >> Six of one half is another. >> I just I I would hate to disturb new pavement. Um >> there's a requirement under ordinance where >> there's a moratorum.
>> Yeah, it's five years. Well, five years may even be seven. >> Okay. >> Um either way, you either have this option or you have that option. We have a moratorum if in fact um it's within those limits and it'll it'll have to be
dealt with. either that or you pave curb the curb. >> Um there that is one of the conditions >> because I mean if if we then switch to Eisenhower we're extending the road anyway. So that could be the solution.
>> Yeah. If you know if you were to pave curb to curb there are some provisions of the ordinance that allow you to um disturb a road under moratorum. it just we don't want just random pavement cuts as you know. So if you want
>> that's what I'm saying if we switch over to Eisenhower. >> Okay. >> One I mean it's it you're looking at two lots now. So it might be a better option but we can work that out. >> Okay. And last question landscaping any any sense any sense how many trees have
to be removed? >> They are marked on the plans as we show it now. >> Okay. >> I just didn't show the replacement because it was conceptual. Do you know how many trees there are to be removed? >> Uh, I think it maybe half a dozen.
>> 14 sound right? >> That >> 14 sound right? >> Whatever ones have the X's on them. >> Okay. But again that would be done at the time of plot plan.
So the when it's actually designed we would come in and do the replacement trees then. So I I guess the only question I have is how do we memorialize that now so that if somebody was to build if this gets approved and somebody goes to build the
house in three years, how do we make sure that the plot plan that gets submitted includes an issue like replanting 14 14 trees? >> Wouldn't the have to comply with your
tree replacement ordinance? Well, in this case, I think we we're looking at the subdivision ordinance that requires I think it's a one for one for every tree. I think it's a two and a half inch caliber tree gets replaced in addition to the street trees that you're
that you're proposing. So, it's 14 replacement trees >> plus street >> 15 >> 15. So, I just want to make sure that doesn't get lost in the details. Again, I can make a a list on the cover
sheet of the conditions of approval >> on the subdivision plan that's going to be signed. Yeah. >> And then that'll be the record documents. >> Yeah. >> So, we're at 15 replacement plus street trees. >> 15 replacement plus street trees. >> Got it. >> Yep. >> All right.
>> Okay. >> Well, the the replacement >> I think street trees are separate. No, but I'm what I'm saying, say the actual house for the plot plan disturbs fewer trees.
I think it would the the plot plan will need to comply with the ordinance for the tree removal and replacement >> at the time of plot plan approval. >> Tree is here tomorrow. Well, if you take out less trees, then hey, we're we're net positive on the
tree placement in Bridgewater. So, let's be happy about that. And and and maybe the county can talk to you and they can take the two that you're maybe you're you're applying here. >> I I'm not saying that we're opposed to that. I just have a genuine question. If not not part of Bill, if if it's not
part of a subdivision and someone goes in submits a plot plan that shows the removal of 15 trees irrespective of the subdivision requirements, doesn't the ordinance require that they plant replacement trees or make a payment in loo.
It's where it's only connected to site plant and subdivisions. Okay. I didn't realize that. Okay. So then >> yeah, that's what I'm saying though. It's if we put the note on there saying that it it shall comply with this section
at the time of plot plan. The the way the language reads and I put it in the review memo is it's specifically connected to a um planning board or zoning board application for a subdivision or single family or two family use. So it's specifically related to the application. And so I do think
that the condition should be imposed directly. Even if the plot plan changes, there should be a replacement calculation. That's what you're you're showing tonight and that's what the ordinance requirement is. >> Yeah. And I I do see your point. If we take out less trees, we shouldn't have
to plant more trees. But >> or if we take out more trees. >> Yeah. If it's the other way, >> it um um I would I'm I'm open to whatever the board is inclined to do obviously, but I just thought that >> this comes back to Mr. Kulak's issue.
This it's it's like a quas bifurcated case. it becomes a a hard enforcement issue because if this goes through compliance then it's out of our hands and it's in the building department and then the ability to go inspect the landscaping is you have to go back through to see what they removed what
they replaced and then Bill does the inspection. So >> now where where issues like this same with the drainage where they would get caught is when the future developer whether it's this applicant or not go to pull their
construction permits for the home. The internal process is to is to check the records and make sure that we have signed site plan or subdivision plans that get attached to the construction permit application. Could Could we cap
the maximum removal at 15? >> Oh, you absolutely could. >> Maybe. Is that one way around this? We just cap 15 maximum trees removed. >> Want to do we want to give um just in case there was a possibility that there was more since we're going to we're
we're agreeing to replace them anyway. Do we want to cap it on a little more just in case? I mean, what if somebody wants to what if 10 years from now after the home is built, somebody needs to remove a tree because they want to install a pool? I don't know if that would >> Well, they they would still be allowed to remove the trees under the the yearly
requirement with the town, >> then the tree removal ordinance kicks in. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> You have to comply with that >> unless they come back to the board. >> Yeah. >> Sure. >> Yeah. But I I my recommendation is that at a at a minimum these subdivision
plans get updated to Craig's point to clearly delineate these issues on these plans. Maybe not in in specificity, but at least in note form, some type of notation so that it's clear when the permits get pulled. >> Mr. Silbert, you you're a good actor.
You come to this board and you always do what you say and I I really respect it and I thank you for that. I'm only chairman for another few months. I don't know if I'll be chairman next year. That's your alternative. Like clearly I'm hot about the trees right now and I've always been since, you know, I've been on this board since 2014.
You can call an audible. There's 45 minutes left tonight. You can come back next year. That's when the next available spot is. If you don't want to do this, that's that's and I don't fault you. That's good lawyering. I think I don't know if I'll be chairman. My my term is also up in December 31st. Who knows if I'll even be here.
>> Kick it till next year and come back. No, I I think I I was just trying to um it's it's a fair request. I just was trying to protect a future >> and and I I honestly mean that. Thank you for everything you do. You you operate, I think, very well with the
town and we like seeing you because you're a man of your word and your your clients I I think hire you because of that. I am going to tell you though, I'm sticking on the tree business. I'm upset about it. Um every case I fight for trees, but the whole board is sick of me bringing it up. Um come back next year.
I won't I probably won't be here. >> Just so you know, I lived across the street from that up there. >> All right. So, >> no. And Mr. Star with you, you're a local guy. You know, I see you all over town and you guys you you take a money for a service, but you have integrity
and I thank you for that. But I'm also telling you maybe it's easier for you to just come back next year. And I and you may have a chairman or may not even have a zone zoning board member that's such a stickler for the trees. >> Yeah, we'll we'll take the 15. Yeah, >> you take >> I don't think it's going to make a difference. >> What if what if more happen to come
down? We're going to cap it at 15. >> And if you happen to take less, you're still going to put in 15 plus the street trees. Is that that okay, Mr. Burr? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I think board is comfortable with capping it at 15 and the applicant is
comfortable. >> And by all means, if any board members want to chime in, >> I think that's fine. >> I think that's fine. >> I have a question. How many trees are there on the lot now? >> Very wooded.
>> A real lot. I didn't count them specifically, but I did mark that there were 15 coming down. >> So, we don't know how. >> So, we have I have on this plan there's a limited disturbance and and the grading and the theoretical house and
where all that those within the limits of disturbance and there's no grading those house those trees are staying. But the ones that are impacted are coming down and that's the 15. >> So we're going to cap it at 15. >> Unless you say >> I think it is it's a it's a reasonable compromise because I think practically
speaking whether the house is bigger or smaller move it around those those are coming down anyway. >> Okay. >> And and if you take down less, you're still putting in 15. >> All right. >> I'm good. >> All right. >> So I I everything you said I understand.
I'm just trying to work this out for a second. So let's just say there was a miscounting and in order to build a home you needed to take down 16. Logically speaking, does that mean the the applicant is to return to the board and h and if the subdivision is already perfected, how do you amend the
subdivision? Like you can't it's it's already perfected >> I don't have an answer. I think maybe you table this thing and come back in January. >> No, you just said we cap it at 15. >> We did cap it at 15. But if that doesn't work, I get it. You a man of integrity. Come back in January. But I don't think
that's going to make a difference. >> Make it 20. >> I would say >> I'm just kidding. >> No, >> if it's less than 15, we're still doing 15. But if it's more than 15, we're still doing 15. >> Perfectly said. >> Perfect.
>> We okay with that? I would just add the caveat that maybe that includes that they preserve trees to the greatest mature trees to the greatest extent so it doesn't motivate anybody to take down. >> I think that's good language. Can we put that language in there? >> Sorry, say that again. >> To that the applicant should preserve
existing mature trees to the greatest extent possible >> and in l of that they will be >> they will be capped at 15. >> Correct. >> Yeah. You coming back in January or we going to keep going? >> Keep going. >> All right,
>> Billy, you are on the mic. >> I'm all done. >> All right. I have one question for you though about the road extension and storm water management. You said we were approaching the limit of the size the length of the road for a storm drain.
And I don't think I really understood what what you meant by that. There is a storm drain on the extension that was previously built or not? >> There is a storm drain at the beginning of the prior extension. So the furthest point from this property,
>> there are storm drains. So normally when you lay out storm drains on a project, you want to make sure that they're spaced depending on the volume of runoff they're going to be collected no more than 400 feet apart. >> In this case, they'd be right about 400
feet apart. meaning the end of the new road extension to where the existing set of inlets are. >> I'm not aware of there being any drainage issues on Eisenhower itself. >> A lot of the the the concerns that I
hear is runoff coming from the individual homes, the roofs, the driveways, and how these lots are all intermingled. Mhm. >> Um I off the top of my head, I don't believe there to be a problem with Eisenhower with the drainage on
Eisenhower. It's just capturing >> or the future or the future drainage onto this new road which is going to collect water >> and you're going to shoot it down to the existing drain at the beginning of the street which is roughly 400 feet away.
The question for me is should you require them to put one in something short of the 400 ft so that you can run that drain into the existing drain? I don't have an answer. I'm just asking the question.
It It's possible. It's possible that they could they could install it if need be. Um I don't think they're envisioning that, >> right? Um I would be frankly John more concerned. So the way Craig graded this out there's going to be a high point
>> right near the corner of this new lot. >> Yes. >> So I don't think I don't think anything's being done that would inundate the system to the south. Mhm. >> I would be more concerned to make make sure that the 75 or 100 foot piece of
the new portion of Eisenhower pointing to the north >> that that portion doesn't drain water somewhere where it's going to have a negative impact. And I think if necessary, um, there are things that can be done to manage the runoff, slow it
down, not allow it to to accumulate and and head towards Roosevelt. So if it's because you have that crown point, you've got a division in the way in which the water runs and then the water that's running, let's say, in the
opposite direction from the storm drain, what's going to happen to it? It just goes into >> that's the area that that's the area I'm speaking of right now. The way it's shown, it just goes into the northerly piece of the unimproved section of Eisenhower. Right. >> That's the way it's shown right now.
>> Um there are things though I think that can be done in that area that will ensure that the properties to the north are protected and that's an area I'd like to take a look at. >> Right. That's that's what I'm anxious to hear about how we might um add some
requirements that they are able to manage that if not by doing what I was talking about earlier but by doing what you're talking about some things that could improve that drainage. >> Okay. >> You can I don't know Mr. Chairman we have the homeowner there. Do you want to
allow him to speak at this place? Please. Please. Yes, sir. So, I think I understand where where you're pointing to in that area. So, just to give you a little bit of u information around this, I usually go out to that area when it when it's
pouring rain to take a look to make sure that everything is fine because it really gushes in that area. That's the the area that I go to scared to make sure that everything is going to be okay. um should probably see porns at
one time. Uh and I've heard my neighbors in um uh President's Drive also complain about that portion of Eisenhower there where we traverse on on the sidewalk. Uh it gets covered. There's some accumulation of gravel and dirt and mud. Um and I think that even the wooden
planks that were put there often get rotted and the kids pass there. I've heard this from my neighbors. I didn't experience it myself. Um the shrubbery grows very tall there which is probably also due to the water accumulation. It ponds near my um
metal stick that marks a lot. So it's kind of like out there in that area. It stays for a while. Um so just to give you a little bit of flavor that is indeed an area that we we see water going there pretty significantly. >> Thank you.
>> Right. Thank you. And Bill, you were saying that because of the crown and that portion of the road which extends might be dumping water in that same area. >> It's going to it's going to add to it. >> So I think I think the board is perfectly within its right to ask the applicant at least the
>> for the extension of Eisenhower and the area across the frontage of this new lot. Mhm. >> You certainly could ask the applicant to introduce some additional drainage measures to help with the issue that we just heard the homeowner talk about. >> Well, I would certainly ask that, but I
don't know what those measures would include. >> Oh, we can get creative. >> Okay, fair enough. >> I think I've already agreed earlier that I would work with uh that the applicant would work with with Mr. Bur if there were were suggestions um to improve
runoff and storm water management conditions associated with the extension were >> I think there were two aspects to that though one is the property upon which that you hope will be improved upon the other is that which is created by the road itself draining in that in that
same direction. So those are two different things and I want both of them covered. >> We agreed to work with with Mr. Bur on both both sides. >> Yeah. So, Bill, there's a calculation that that 28 additional feet of new roadway,
how would we calculate given the current situation, how would we know that we would need another stormwater grate on the street? Because the closest one I saw was at the corner. >> Yeah, it's it's down at the corner. Um, you would take a look at the contributo
uh drainage area, the amount of runoff in a in a given storm. Typically, you'd look at the 25-year storm, right? So you look at that amount of water that flows to a specific inlet, right? >> And then every inlet can accept only a certain amount of water through the
grates. So we we would just want to take a look at it. If you want to get technical, you size it size it that way. I >> I guess my second point is we just spent an hour basically talking about why this isn't a major subdivision in terms of storm water. And I think we
acquiesed to the applicant that, you know, we didn't push them into that and we created some boundaries and some caps to save them on additional costs. And it sounds like the applicant is stipulating that they will work with you on drainage on property. But I'm concerned that if there is a situation that develops where
Bill looks at this and we say, "Hey, we do need a storm water great installed on the street." That's a a significant additional expense. You're willing to do that if he deems that necessary? because I think this board is is now spent an hour working to try and keep you out of that
major threshold, you know, because that that's a whole new ball of wax in terms of dollars and development costs that I think this board is now, you know, fleshed out, set caps and worked extensively on. I just want to make sure that when you if Bill does say, "Hey, you do need a stormwater great installed
on the street." >> One second. >> While they're conferring, I'll just add that the the road that is being built has a crown point. Y >> so it's not that we're adding so much volume to the water going down to the storm sewer, but rather we're splitting
the water and we're sending some in the opposite direction. And that's what Bill and I were talking about implementing some controls or some ways to mitigate that drainage. So it's not so much that we're looking for the additional storm drain. We're trying to manage the water
which is flowing in the opposite direction from that which would be flowing toward the existing storm drain. >> Okay. >> Did I say that right? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Well done. I would say that again, we stipulated that we would work with Bill to to get
this to a point where it's acceptable to him. Um I I still agree to keep this under the threshold of 10,560. >> Um I have a pretty good idea of just hearing the neighbor and being out to the site. It's I think the problem is
that corner where Roosevelt makes a 90. >> There's a low spot right in the corner there that I think is problematic probably because there's no way out for the water. And there's a little swell right there and there's somebody's put down like a wooden planks. It's almost
like a uh um whatchamacallit um pallet. So when kids walk from Roosevelt, they walk across the pallet and then they can get to the school. >> Then that pallet is over the little swale. So I think the little tweak right there, which I don't think is going to
be too costly, would make a vast improvement to, you know, what these concerns are because I think all the water really drains to that little point right there. And I think if there if there is a problem and it's a simple fix, I think Bill and I can work it out
because I'm pretty sure that is the the concern from the neighbor. >> I I I just want to make sure that though if it does approach substantial expense. >> Well, I think the other thing is if it gets to that point, we come back to the board. >> That that's what I'm going to say is that, you know, ultimately you're going to have to come back if you don't like
the the solution. >> I agree. But I'm confident that Bill and I have worked in the past a few times and we've come and worked these things out. I don't think we'll be back. >> Okay. >> But if it gets to that point, you'll we'll come back and we'll we'll address it. >> All right. Very good.
>> I'm okay with that. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, so one of the things I just wanted to address or at least have the applicant put on the record is there's been now a request for um what's called the dimminimous exception from RSIS um for
the culde-sac road and the 2007 approval did include that um some of the findings about that that it was going to be it was actually going to come in off of Roosevelt um and be the only house served by it. So the finding in the resolution was that the exception was
warranted because um it would be an undue hardship to have a culde-sac improvement only for one home serving one home. Um this is a little different now because coming in there are now four there will be there are existing four houses and there will be five houses that be served by the culde-sac and I
just want to make sure um that the applicant follows the requirements under the RSIS under 521-3.1A that talks about um why this board would have the authority to grant that exception um because as part of that
waiver request through and request through the RSIS that we have that has to be provided to the DCA essentially. And so, um, it probably would be good to have it as part of the record. And so um those requirements note that um the diminish dimminimous
exceptions um can be granted as reasonable and within the general purpose and intent of the standards but if and only if the literal enforcement of one of or more provisions of the standards is impracticable or will exact undue hardship because of peculiar
conditions pertain to the development in question. Um and then the exception um that the grant of the exception shall be based on a finding that it meets four criteria which is that it's consistent with the intent of the act establishing
the RSIS reasonable limited noty burdensome burdensome meets the needs of public health and safety and takes into account existing infrastructures possible surrounding future development. So I think those things just need to be put on the record if not provided in writing so that when
um it is transmitted to the DCA that the resolution at least reflects it or something reflects it because that development application will actually need to be um provided or that you know they need to be notified to the state that there is an exception warranted >> certainly provide a justification in
writing. My understanding is based upon the testimony we heard is that there there is safe and efficient um ability for uh emergency apparatus to turn around based upon the easement that
we're granting. So, I think that we're we're meeting the intent and spirit of um RSIs and that because the the paper sheet is only so wide, I think we're maximizing, correct
if I'm mistaken, aren't we maximizing the the width of the paper road and what we're proposing? >> Yeah, I mean, we would only be for those number of houses, we would only need to be 20 foot wide and we're 28. And again, when I looked at the RSIs tonight,
unless um your professionals can state something specific, I think the RSI is as vague as far as the requirements of it. >> So, the fire access is more related to the fire code and we do with the in and
out, the hammerhead, I guess you could call it, of the driveway, we do comply with the fire code of of New Jersey. Well, either and I was going to bring this up after we closed up the RSIS, but the township code also does have requirements related to deadend streets
and culde-sacs under 126-241G under the design standards that I noticed in the or referenced in the review memo. Um, and so I think an additional design waiver would need to be requested and granted from this board
for that as well. But it has nothing it doesn't it doesn't note um anything about fire or emergency services. I think it does require that there is a tuck truck turning and that emergency vehicles just like RSIS that there's a requirement that those things be shown
um in the case that the the radius complies um for an emergency vehicle. But um you know I think the RSIS or or at least the township's standards do make a requirement that just a dead end street would need a culde-sac. So a one-way access would require it. So um
you know I think Mr. Silbert just provided a little bit about what the request is. I just want to make sure that the the standard is met that the literal enforcement is impracticable or will exact undue hardship. I think the 2007 resolution noted it and I just want to make sure it's clear here as well if
we're if we're if the board is willing to grant that exception. >> If I can expand also you look at the prior the subdivisions to the south you know that there was clearly practical difficulty associated with creating a culde-sac otherwise that would have been
created in connection with the subdivisions that precede this application. So, I think just I'm looking at the um the boards I don't I don't recall if the if the I don't know if an application was submitted to the planning board or the zoning board, but it was to the planning board. So, I
would imagine that the planning board would have required a culde-sac if it was possible. I I don't I don't think it's it's feasible. And I think that we're accomplishing the same um goal by our proposed hammerhead
turnaround that that Craig's discussed at length. Um and again I think that if the board is looking to grant that exception that we do get that in writing as well as it'll be part of any kind of transmitt to the DCA >> and then I think also the board would
have to I just to cover the bases would also have to grant the design waiver from the township sections which cover deadend streets and culde-sac >> probably the last culde-sac sack exemption was this case >> if they got it. I'd be I'd be curious to see what the
paper which is why I wouldn't necessarily rely upon the idea that just cuz they didn't get it means that they don't have to do it now if this is the last developable lot here then why not now? >> Well, the one in 2007 got it and the one
in 2020 got it because there's it's the same setup. >> 2020 didn't come through this board. I'm saying the last culde-sac exemption this board granted probably was your 2007 case. >> I think that the real problem and I don't know if I'm straying from what we're talking about is that the paper
street is supposed to connect to Roosevelt and no one wants that affectuated but that's how how it's supposed to be. >> And as long as you can supply in writing what Katherine needs I I I think we're on the same page. >> Excellent.
>> Okay. Um, other than that, I think we've covered the trees and we have the conditions related to the tree replacement covered. Um, and then I probably think we just need to hear from their planner about the D5 variance, >> which I would love to do very quickly.
>> All right. Uh, just again, members of the public that have any questions on Mr. Styer's testimony, now is the time to approach. Seeing none. All right. You want to do your planner? Thank you, Mr. Styers. Good evening, >> Matt. Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the
testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And would you state your name for the record, please? >> Matthew Flynn, Lynn Nnn. >> And do you know what a Reader's Digest version is? I'll try I'll try to keep it within about an hour and a half if that's okay,
Mr. >> Okay. 10 minutes. >> All right, Mr. Flynn. Uh, your license is in good standing. >> That's correct. >> All right. We accept you as an expert in planning. >> Thank you, sir. >> I'll jump right in here. >> Please do. >> Um, yeah. So, really, as the board
heard, we're talking about the creation of two new lots. One of which is 98% conforming in terms of lot area. the other is 100% conforming. Um really the main question before the board this evening is whether that 98% uh reduction in lot area causes a
substantial detriment to the public. Again, not discounting all the concerns about storm water and the like from a planning standpoint and from a variance standpoint that really is the key test here. Um really I think we can look to three main considerations. One being that the degree of departure is very
minimal. Uh the other is that the proposed lot will even though it is undersized and we are requiring a density variance by way of that. Um I did take a look at the surrounding neighborhood and we are compatible with both the surrounding densities as well
as the surrounding lot areas. Um and really the third thing is that what we see on our conceptual plan is that we can uh really provide two houses that are in keeping and not requiring any bulk relief. Um what we did by placing
the undersized lot where the existing home is um is really a sort of creative uh uh creative alternative in my opinion than having the undersized lot being the proposed conceptual home because now we can see that it's not speculative. We
have a home here that does meet all of those bulk requirements. So in light of that we are creating that conforming lot along Eisenhower and by being conforming conceivably we will be able to comply with all of those
bulk requirements seeing that it is that 40,000 square foot that's required in the zone. Um this is a highly unique property in that it is substantially oversized. It's only just under the double of the minimum lot area. Um for two lots we would need 80,000 square
feet and here we have 79,300 square ft. Um it's a through lot so we do have frontage along that paper street which we are of course proposing to improve. And so for those reasons really the planning rationale that applies to this
lot would not necessarily carry forth to any of the other lots in the zone. This is a highly unique property um that I think warrants the conversation that we're having this evening. Um so really just quickly the relief that we're seeking uh one being of course the lot
area variance 39,300 square feet versus the 40,000 square feet minimum required again that's 98% uh conforming and then I think uh Mike mentioned this at the outset that the D5 density variance is sort of a technical
variance from the municipal land use law. If this were not a major subdivision that would actually not be in play. I think the clear intent of the municipal land use law is to uh steer clear of Dvariances for single family dwellings. Um but again since this is
not a minor subdivision, it is not exempt from that D5 density variance. Um so I'll go through the the density uh density variance testimony now. Um here again this is really just because
we are not necessarily creating a new street but improving that paper street which triggers that major subdivision uh category. Uh when we look at the positives the benefits of the application from the municipal land use law. I think we can look to purpose A which is promotion of the general
welfare. Not only are we extending this paper street, but we are providing uh additional housing stock to meet the needs of all New Jersey residents, effectuating the purpose of a single family zone with an additional single family home. Uh purpose G, variety of
uses in appropriate locations. Here again, we are talking about two lots that are essentially conforming. Um all in all, again, it's just under the double the minimum lot area that's required in the zone. And even though the proposed uh undersized lot is 39,300
square feet, based on my analysis, it is going to remain one of the largest lots um in the area. There are several undersized properties in the immediate area. Uh purpose I desirable visual environment. I would say that again since this is a through lot, this is a
more normal configuration. We have homes that front on Eisenhower. This is going to be another home fronting on Eisenhower. And we have um the exhibit that the engineer provided us here that shows that this is going to really look like uh sort of the missing tooth in
this development. We have these nice two rows of homes and this is going to continue that that trend. Uh purpose M is efficient use of land. Again, to the extent that we do have an undersized lot, we are substantially conforming in terms of the bulk requirements.
Um, in terms of the negative criteria, no substantial detriment to the public or to the zone. Like I said at the beginning of my testimony, really the main test here is whether the proposed variances are going to have a substantial detriment. Um, in this case, we are substantially compliant. Again,
even though we do have an undersized lot. And just to provide some real numbers here, again, it's not speculative since this is the lot that has the existing dwelling on it. Um, just by way of example, front yard to the country club, we're only required to
have 50 feet. We have 85 feet. Um, sideyard, we only need 20 ft. We have 42 feet. So, double. Uh, rear yard, we only need 75 ft. We have 125 ft. Uh, the big one really is F. We're allowed up to
0.15 and we're at uh just about half of that at 0.05. Um, so again from a uh impacts to the public, this is not going to stand out as overdevelopment in my opinion. Um, so not a substantial departure from zoning,
not a substantial departure from what we see in the neighborhood. Again, even despite the fact that this passes the eye test, I'll say based on the exhibit that we have on the easel here, I did look at all of the properties within about 2,000 ft of the property in
question, um, which came out to about 37 properties. the average density was about 1.5 dwelling units per acre, whereas the density that we're proposing is 1.1 dwelling units per acre. Um, so again, it's not going to stand out as being something that's more dense than
what we see in the neighborhood. I also looked at lot area within 2,000 ft. Uh, the average there was about 34,800 square ft and of course we're proposing over 39,000. So again, it's not going to be the smallest lot in the neighborhood.
It's actually going to remain um larger or equal to about 76% of the other homes or other lots that I saw in the immediate neighborhood. Um so really with all that, I think the D5 density test is met here. The benefits certainly
outweigh the detriments. Uh the the deviation is not going to be noticeable in the public eye. And of course from a zoning standpoint also by way of all of those bulk uh bulk compliances I would say that this is also uh something that
is right in line with what we would like to see in this zone. Uh so the flip the other variance would be the C2 balancing test for the lot area variance. Um really it's part and parcel with the D5 test. The D5 is triggered because of the
lot area. So, I think all of that rationale really carries forth for the lot area variance as well. And we did hear about the C1 test a little bit. Um, and that's the hardship test. Um, whereby the relief relates to the the land dedication of the 700 square ft
that resulted in the undersized lot. Um, if we did not have that land dedication, we would actually have a compliant 80,000 square foot property. So I think there is a a basis for C1 which the board did find in 2007.
Um so I think we can look to both the C2 test as well as the C1. The applicant only needs to meet one of those tests, but I think the application is is bolstered by meeting both of those. Um so to conclude, I think what we have here is something that's highly unique.
Uh not precedent setting. It's relative to this specific property. It makes practical sense. I mentioned it passes the quote unquote eye test. It looks like it uh belongs here. It's that so-called missing tooth um in this nice row of two houses both fronting on
country club as well as Eisenhower. And of course there is some history that we talked about in terms of conditions that we hooked on this um application several years ago and of course those are in play uh to the extent applicable as well as any conditions that we've discussed
this evening. Um, I think at this point there really are no outstanding issues. The board really hit on the uh the major concerns here which really relate to storm water even though we are in keeping with uh lot coverage here. Um
and and again just even though we do have a non-conforming lot in terms of area that lot is still at 11.5% lot coverage. So again, even though we are talking about storm water, this is not something that's overdeveloped uh by any
means in my opinion. Um so I think that was as brief as I could be. So if there's any questions or redirects, >> um I would just say that uh Mr. Oler, we can mark this exhibit that Mr. Flynn referenced. It was not introduced. It could be marked as A2 entitled aerial
rendering today's date. And and I think what you went over, Mr. Mr. Flynn, correct me if I'm mistaken, is you you kind of touched upon the Coventry Square standard and the grub standard with respect to the D5 variants, believing that the site can absolutely withstand the dimminimous uh or minimal increase
in density and you don't think that it'll have any um detrimental effect on the neighborhood then if construction of this project were to occur in the manner consistent with the zone's density restrictions? >> Agreed. The basic test that was just uh referenced here is can the site
accommodate the increased density and again the increased density is relative to that existing dwelling which is substantially compliant with all of the bulk requirements. >> Thank you. I have I have nothing further. >> All right. Board questions for Mr. Flynn and his planning testimony. >> Board professionals.
>> None for me, Mr. Chairman. >> None for me either. >> All right. Members of the public questions on Mr. Flynn's testimony. All right. Seeing none, if you want to wrap up, Mr. Silver, thank you, Mr. Flint. >> Um, no, I I will I won't take up the board's time. I know it's uh we're past
two or very close. So, um, thank you for allowing us, Mr. Chairman, to go a little bit over. I will have the pleasure of reappearing before the end of your term, the end of the month. >> Yes. >> So, you haven't gotten rid of me and I haven't gotten rid of you. >> Yep. Um, I I think that this application
was perhaps not as straightforward as I initially represented because the board uh pointed out a number of concerns. And because of that, the public is is now going to benefit from a better application than really what what we had
originally come in through through the proper vetting of your professionals and through the board. So, I'm glad that we were we were able to work with you and um that's pretty much it. >> All right. Uh, thank you, Mr. Silbert. I I just one thing before Rich takes us through stipulations. I I just want you
to understand that this drainage issue is a risk. You're taking a risk here, and I don't want you to appear before Judge Miller, whoever gets this case and say, "The zoning board said this. We're leaving it open to Mr. Burr's interpretation of what this property needs in terms of storm water. You may
not like the answer, but you're agreeing to comply or you're going to come back here." Just so we're crystal clear on that. >> It is crystal clear. That is what we are agreeing to. >> All right. Thank you very much. Rich, you want to take us through? >> Sure. So, um there are a few the uh the existing
shed's going to now be removed even though it says to remain on the plan. So, that'll be removed. >> Um with respect to the street trees, and there'll be more on this in a second, but the you will match the uh street trees which were used to uh to the south
on Eisenhower Avenue on another project. Mhm. >> Um, with respect to the 50 by34 access easement, there'll be a written easement to the township with enforcement rights that you and I are going to work on. Um,
you'll comply the I guess the prior 2007 resolution conditions will be in in this resolution. That'll include the uh sidewalks will either be installed or there'll be a contribution. Um, you'll repair country club road sidewalks if if
repairs are required. Um, >> to the to the extent the 2007 conditions are applicable because there are conditions that aren'table. >> Right. Right. I agreed. Uh, there will be a developers agreement.
There'll be a sewer easement through lot 4.01 which will benefit 4.02 2 and that'll be subject to uh to bills and and my review. You'll comply with the township engineer storm water requirements of course all
the requirements in the reports with respect to imperous coverage. The coverage shall not exceed 16.7% on lot 4.01. Sorry, that's 4.02, right? Yes, >> sir. >> Yeah. Yep. On 4.02.
>> And if development on 4.02 does exceed 16.7 impervious coverage uh percentage, then the developer of lot 4.02 will comply with major storm water development regulations. Um or otherwise, we'll have to come back to this board to modify this condition. Um
all water runoff created by the development of lot 4.02 02 shall be managed directly on that lot 4.02 O2 by installing all storm water management facilities on the lot um to the uh satisfaction of the
township engineer including the installation of storm uh sewer inlets in Eisenhower Avenue if that's determined to be necessary and again you have the option to come back to modify condition
you'll file a deed notice with respect to those items Uh, regarding trees, you'll preserve um existing mature trees to the extent possible and the applicant shall not remove more than 15 trees and shall satisfy the tree replacement ordinance,
but shall install a minimum of 15 replacement trees. Will also satisfy the street tree ordinance. And I think that's all of them. >> Did we get culde-sac exemption RSIs need approval language? >> Yeah, I I it's not a condition. Okay.
>> But yes, I will have the RSIS language in here. Oh, you want a letter from them though, right? So that'll be a condition to provide >> their re their rationale. >> Please. >> Y got one more time. Yes.
>> As a property owner, Katherine, what are they allowed to take one out a year unless they're dead? >> I think it might be one to three. It's You're still doing 15. >> If it's If it's less, you're still doing 15. >> Yeah. >> You're not doing more than 15.
If the property owner someday wants to take down a tree, they would have to comply with Bridgewater tree ordinance. >> That's what >> you're coming back. I think there's no >> Yeah, you're taking out 15 maximum. >> Yeah, there's no option to go over 15.
>> Okay, I'm glad we caught we talked about it. So, we'll see you in January. >> Okay. So, you're saying that you think you need to take more than 15 trees down? So this this you're asking for a bifurcated case and and that's really
what this board tries to avoid. No matter how big or small, we don't want bifurcated cases. So if you don't want 15, come back in January. I won't be the chairman. You can submit a bifurcated cases. >> All right. So why don't you read it again and make sure that Mr. Styers and
Mr. Silbert are okay. understand >> it's 15 max. You do less, you're still doing 15. >> If you take down more, you got a problem. >> You got to come back here. >> If you take down more, you're going to have the same fate as as the county has
where we're going to go to the satellite and we're going to I'm going to throw the book at you or whoever's here is going to throw the book at you. I say you I I I I No, don't do it. You come back to the board. >> That that's the tree policy and the
tree. >> Yes. Because you're stipul you're stipulating to that for approval. I I'm I'm just confused that if the future we had to if we needed to remove 17 to construct the dwelling, we were willing
to replace it with 17 trees. I don't I just don't understand where the loss is versus if we have to come back that >> because the township basically mandates that you only have to replace with an 8 inch tree. Is that
correct, Katherine? And if you remove a a mature tree, you can't really plant a mature tree. You're never going to get a liken instrument back in the ground that matches what you've taken out. >> In other words, if you were taking down 20, you don't want to have to come back
to the board. >> Well, that's not the case. >> Why didn't you mark 20 trees then on your submission tonight? >> That's where I'm confused. If it's 20, that's 20. So mark 20. We could have talked about 20 all night tonight. >> Problem not knowing what you're
building. >> That's the problem. >> It's okay to not. >> Yeah. But but that's a bifurcated case. And this board really pushes applicants to stay away from bifurcation because these are the problems of a bifrocated application. And under New Jersey state law, and again, I'm not an attorney, but
I'll refer to the one sitting to me on the left. cases that are part and parcel have information that are pivotal and structural to a bifurcated case we can deny because we need more information. So, if we need more information that you're going to take out, 20 trees, 25 trees, let's just deny it and you come
back with a full application. >> You can almost sill I would agree with you, >> but I'm saying come back in January. You get a new board. You get a new chairman. Maybe that they'll look at things differently. I I'm not the law. I'm just
I'm I'm one vote. >> I'm just going to make a quick suggestion. If you're unsure as to how many trees you're going to be cutting down, >> we'll take another look. >> Are you unsure as to how many trees are there now? >> No. Number of trees,
>> right? But again, just to make it very clear on the record for if a judge does hear this, we were not arbitrary in pulling 15. That's your number. >> We're not propos we're not proposing to build that. That's why I think it's arbitrary. I think it is arbitrary because
>> so that goes to the credibility of your expert then tonight >> lot is fully conforming the lot's conforming so >> referring to it as a bifurcated application I want to create a lot >> no I I a quasi bifurcation because at a
lot of points you're not a bifrocated but on this point you're asking the board to kind of suspend disbelief and you want to come back and let us know we we just want a definitive answer >> on the for trees to be removed. >> Yes. >> Currently right now, but we're not
proposing to remove any trees. That's we are proposing that. >> Okay. So, let's set it at zero. That's wonderful. >> And you got to come back. >> There's got to be a way to I'm not I'm not even I'm not trying to circle that. I just don't understand it.
>> Yeah, but I'm confused now because I you come up with 15. If you and you take down 12, fine. You replace 15. I wonder if all of a sudden if you do this different design of a house and you're taking down 30. >> That's why I would suggest I would suggest just a one for one replacement
across the board. >> Ask ask Rich. >> You can't possibly replace mature trees with like kind mature trees. That that's kind of the that's our point. >> But that but that ordinance is based on
the site plan and subdivision review process. It's not deferred to the tree removal process on an individual home. >> So it's 10 10:15. I read a statement that we stop at 10 o'clock. You've been in front of this
board many many times. >> So see you in January. We do 15 but I mean it's incredible amount of pressure for something. >> Would you like as we deliberate would you like each board member to chime in on that? I'm I'm open to doing that
>> in January. Well, we're going to we're going to agree to the 15. But I am asking the board to give us some flexibility because it would be incredible in position some money in the future and come back to >> you know what else would be a major inquisition is if we made you conform to major storm water development plan and we spent an hour trying to save your
client a lot of money and keep everybody safe. So the board went out of their way for you already once tonight. I think that worked with us and we both sides together on it. But I don't
want to I won't keep anybody here. We're saying we're going to >> You don't have to. >> I'm asking the board to at least deliberate on the suggestions that I have >> and I I think that's a fair suggestion. So why don't we open up the deliberations, Rich, if you've got all the stipulations out. >> Those are that was all of it. >> All right. So >> Jim, why don't you open this up and
we'll see if we have the will for even a vote tonight. >> I I can't vote on >> I can't even offer an opinion now with the open end on the trees. >> I >> So it's it's not open end now. They're if I'm hearing him correctly,
>> they're going to agree to um a maximum of 15 trees to be removed when they submit their plot plan to build this house. And if they relocate a house, because this is just someone's guesstimate of where a house might be in size, if that is altered to be in a
place that would require 16 or more trees to be removed, they would come back to modify that condition. >> Are you agreeing to that? >> I am. I'm agreeing to that. Okay. >> It's what you're agreeing to is what I have to deliberate on. >> Yeah, that's what they're agreeing to.
His point is that if this were a fully conforming lot anywhere in the township today >> and they came in to to pull a building permit to construct a house on a fully conforming lot and they were going to take down say 20 trees, right? They
would have to comply with the tree replacement ordinance. >> Ordinance. >> Okay. >> And he's saying, "Why can't we have that?" >> Right? >> Why can't he? >> Yeah. >> Why? Why can't he have that? It doesn't conform. >> If you conformed, you would. Okay. So,
you're agreeing to the >> This slide is conforming. Excuse me. Could I just jump in here a minute because I don't want to stay here any later than I have to. Um, if they have to come back in January or February, can
we give them an expedited review? I mean, I think that's what their concern is. >> There's nothing there's nothing further for the board to review because we're not we wouldn't make a change that it it's conceptual. We're creating a lot and one day somebody's going to submit a plot plan. So it so I've already said
that the applicant would do the 15 tree removal. I'm saying we will do it agree to that stipulation. I've also asked the board to cons I'm making it known that we don't want to do it and I I asked the board to consider alternatives. Um but I don't want to keep the board any
>> right. And the specific alternative you suggested is for a one for one replacement. So if in fact they have to remove 20 25 whatever the number is they'll replace it with 20 or 25 trees. In my opinion I think that's reasonable.
Um so I would support that. You guys are up your opinion. Have your opinion. You may express it. >> Right. Ready golf. Who else? >> I I'm for one for one replacement because if can we do one for one replacement minimum 15?
>> Yes. Does the number of removed have any effect on the storm order or anything else topographically on that property >> were there to be more than X removed? >> It it absolutely has an impact on storm
water and I think that's part of why this is in the board's purview to limit the number of trees. >> This is why we're this is all about we spend a lot of time on the storm water issue. So if he just told me that the number of trees that are removed has no
impact whatsoever on the storm water issues on that property, I would say yeah, one for one is a great idea. >> But it does, right? So if it does and we we spend all that time figuring out how can we get you from 16.7% and this and
that like what do we do? What do you want? Which which is we want to something else forget about the one's already consider
storm water management infrastructure implement on the property talking about major tree >> I'm with Mr. Gayski on this Mr. Koulak says he's okay with one for one. It sounds like these gentlemen are so >> one for one, >> Mr. Fresco, Mr. Gavit, Mrs. Amen. Your thoughts.
>> You go. Go first. Go. >> You don't. >> Go ahead. >> All right. So, I I I think um listen, I I I sympathize with the fact that you put it on the record and you you you showed us the house and I get that, you know, you guys are Mr. Styers does an
amazing job. You know, you guys are pros. Um I I think that that maybe we should just move it a little. maybe compromise a little bit more. I don't know that I'm for one for one because it's a bad night to be arguing about trees and I'm with Mr. Foose always about trees. I'm a tree guy myself.
>> So, I think maybe maybe we can move it a little bit more and get and get it to like I don't know and 20 is too many. Uh, you know, 17 and a half, 18 trees, you know, something like that. Give you a little bit more flexibility because coming back in January doesn't do anything and coming back in 7 months
when you're building a house doesn't. Nobody wants to come back here. So, I don't know, maybe we can move it a little bit. Uh, go to 18 trees. Um, but I think if you do that, I think if you do that, the minimum goes with it. I think the minimum should go with it. I think you go to 18, then that's the new
minimum. >> So, >> yeah. I mean, you know, >> Mr. Chairman, >> yes. How about >> uh anything over removal of 15 would warrant a replacement of trees at a two for one.
>> Winner winner. Winner winner. >> Gave me the idea. >> Works for me. >> Yes, >> we're good. >> All right. Well done. >> Good job, Nancy. Welcome back. >> Good luck. >> All right. >> Okay. So, otherwise I I support and I support the revised um option.
>> You good with that, Rich? Yes. >> All right. Mrs. Amin, are you okay with that? >> Yeah, I agree with that one. >> All right. I I I agree with the the board as well. I would open the floor to a motion, please. >> No, we have to do Okay. I I >> Wait, wait, wait. Over 15. It's two for
one. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, if he does for the amount over 15. >> Over 15. >> Yes. >> I'm for it. >> Okay. Do I have a motion, please? >> I move. Let's vote. I'm going home. >> All right. So, just very So, Jim was the motion. You were the second.
>> Yes. >> All right. Nancy, >> we don't hear you. >> All right. >> Who is the second? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. With the uh conditions above 15, two for one.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> No, I don't think the number of trees that are being replaced has anything to do with the storm water management on that property.
>> My >> I don't think >> Mr. Gaskki was a no. >> That was a no. >> Mr. CCAT. >> Yes. >> All right. 61, you're approved. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Silbert. >> All right. Don't leave. We have an
adjournment for Cafe Emmelia. That was for tonight. >> Correct. And >> we have to tell the public when that case is and if there's going to be further notice. >> So, they will not be further notice. That's what the um adjournment request
that we received stipulated. >> Okay. >> It's adjourned to December 9th without further notice. >> 7 p.m. this room. >> Yes. And I have one other item if I could, Mr. Chairman. Um, when we voted on the Wagger application, >> yes,
>> we should have called Mr. CCAT as the seventh. I miscounted. So, if we could just get Mr. CCAT's vote on Wager for a seventh, he would be voting for Mr. Sweeney since he's absent. >> Okay. Mr. CCAT, your vote on the Wagar application. >> Yes.
>> So, that would be seven. >> All right. And then for the board, our next meeting is October 28th, 7 p.m. We have Bridgewater Storage and Wovich >> comment. >> Yes, they'll be voting in here. So, we need another room. >> So, Nancy, we'll need another space to
have this meeting on October 28th, >> I believe. Open early voting. >> Early voting starts on the 25th. >> This room will be locked. >> So, what we've done in the past is we met in the conference room next door. Yeah, we had u we'll work that out. Um
because they sometimes put machines >> early voting. Yeah, it happens in here. >> All right, everyone. Thank you very much for listening to my trees and >> working so hard tonight. I have a motion to adjourn. >> Thank you everyone.
Did we >> Starbucks is over? >> Okay, it's over. >> Yeah. >> And the resolution was adopted. >> Not yet. [Music]